1 2012-12-20 00:01:28 owowo has joined
   2 2012-12-20 00:01:37 <Jouke> Or maybe I shouldn't care so hard and deal with it once it really is a problem :P
   3 2012-12-20 00:02:09 <gmaxwell> Jouke: it's possible to hardlink the files, but thats not a great solution.  But running seperate wallets per customer is generally a bad idea— it results in inefficient transactions.
   4 2012-12-20 00:02:21 <gmaxwell> Jouke: I really recommend that. You'll know what matters more when you actually have problems.
   5 2012-12-20 00:02:47 <Jouke> what do you mean by inefficcient transactions?
   6 2012-12-20 00:03:04 <Jouke> because it wouldn't have enough transactions to chose from?
   7 2012-12-20 00:03:41 stealth222 has joined
   8 2012-12-20 00:04:16 <gmaxwell> right, having more choices lets you make more efficient transactions— you can produce change outputs less often, avoid fees by spending older inputs, etc.
   9 2012-12-20 00:04:50 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
  10 2012-12-20 00:06:12 <Jouke> yeah, but that isn't satoshidicecompatible.
  11 2012-12-20 00:06:39 Jiffy has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  12 2012-12-20 00:08:22 <gmaxwell> Jouke: thats .. uh.. kind of a cruddy motivation.
  13 2012-12-20 00:08:52 <gmaxwell> (what SD does is basically broken, and the site won't last forever in any case)
  14 2012-12-20 00:09:49 <midnightmagic> it won't?
  15 2012-12-20 00:10:15 <midnightmagic> it feels like it's the immortal zombie, no matter how many times you shoot it it still shambles along demanding brains
  16 2012-12-20 00:10:36 <gmaxwell> Very unlikely. hm? no one is shooting it. If it were being shot it .. it would be gone.
  17 2012-12-20 00:11:03 <sipa> miners blocking their transactions, double spend attacks... ?
  18 2012-12-20 00:11:06 <Jouke> I know, yet it is a valid motivation :x
  19 2012-12-20 00:11:17 <sipa> i'd call that shooting
  20 2012-12-20 00:11:29 <gmaxwell> okay, but only paintball.
  21 2012-12-20 00:11:39 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
  22 2012-12-20 00:12:31 <sipa> ha
  23 2012-12-20 00:15:03 <gmaxwell> Mostly the things you're seeing done aren't about making SD a target. Miners blocking them are at least partially motivated by an expectation of reduced orphans (blocking does make GBT noticeably faster), Double spends because of novelity and because its profitable.  E.g. not much "I want it to die, and I don't care if it costs me a bit to make it happen".
  24 2012-12-20 00:17:10 TwilightSparklee has joined
  25 2012-12-20 00:19:51 copumpkin has quit (Ping timeout: 251 seconds)
  26 2012-12-20 00:20:25 copumpkin has joined
  27 2012-12-20 00:20:28 <stealth222> I've implemented a new feature in the satoshi client and have put the repository up on github. I'm a total github noob - how do I submit a pull request and how to I fix up my branches and commits?
  28 2012-12-20 00:21:48 <gmaxwell> put the commit in a branch, locally, push that to github... navigate to the branch on github and click the pull request button. Gavin wrote a writeup on bitcoin talk for the whole process.
  29 2012-12-20 00:22:00 <gmaxwell> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4571.0
  30 2012-12-20 00:26:25 <stealth222> I've done all that except for picking a new branch name and submitting the pull request
  31 2012-12-20 00:26:45 <sipa> the new branch name is not necessary, actually
  32 2012-12-20 00:27:15 <sipa> and you alreayd know how to clean up your branch :)
  33 2012-12-20 00:27:58 <stealth222> well, sorta - it still gives me strange behavior that I don't fully understand. and it's not so much the mechanics that are tripping me up but the whole git approach
  34 2012-12-20 00:28:10 <stealth222> it's a lot of new stuff to learn
  35 2012-12-20 00:28:14 <mredmond> lol
  36 2012-12-20 00:28:29 <gmaxwell> "it still gives me strange behavior that I don't fully understand"  Ah, thats how you know you're using git.
  37 2012-12-20 00:28:56 paybitcoin1 has joined
  38 2012-12-20 00:28:57 <sipa> oh, it certainly is complicated, and typically something you're unfamiliar with
  39 2012-12-20 00:29:17 <stealth222> so I'm not the only one here who finds it weird? lol
  40 2012-12-20 00:30:08 <sipa> hardly :D
  41 2012-12-20 00:30:14 paybitcoin has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  42 2012-12-20 00:31:44 <stealth222> ok, pull request submitted
  43 2012-12-20 00:32:27 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
  44 2012-12-20 00:32:35 <stealth222> will others find it automatically now?
  45 2012-12-20 00:32:38 <sipa> well you'll need to clean that up for sure :)
  46 2012-12-20 00:33:09 <stealth222> it's not just a matter of cleaning it up - I don't even know what the objective is as far as what it should look like
  47 2012-12-20 00:33:12 <stealth222> lol
  48 2012-12-20 00:33:17 <gmaxwell> stealth222: we have some issues open in that space that you may want to factor in.
  49 2012-12-20 00:33:34 <sipa> the commits in it should be standalone meaningful changes
  50 2012-12-20 00:34:04 <stealth222> I could have sworn I did get rid of a bunch of those commits
  51 2012-12-20 00:34:10 root2_ is now known as root2
  52 2012-12-20 00:34:13 <stealth222> but they are still showing up
  53 2012-12-20 00:34:17 <sipa> 'start of' is not a good commit; 'added RPC call X' is
  54 2012-12-20 00:34:24 <sipa> also, don't overwrite our README :)
  55 2012-12-20 00:34:48 <sipa> if you want to add some documentation for what you're written - great, but put it in a separate file in doc/
  56 2012-12-20 00:34:48 <gmaxwell> stealth222: generally it should be possible to compile and run the software between every commit. (this isn't always possible but when possible it should always be done)
  57 2012-12-20 00:35:01 <stealth222> compiling and running is not the issue
  58 2012-12-20 00:35:04 <stealth222> I'm a pro at that :p
  59 2012-12-20 00:35:16 <sipa> stealth222: compiling and running at every stage in between two commits
  60 2012-12-20 00:35:19 <sipa> not just at the end
  61 2012-12-20 00:35:30 <sipa> you don't need to go spend time to actually verify that
  62 2012-12-20 00:35:37 <gmaxwell> stealth222: as far as issues go, se also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1653
  63 2012-12-20 00:35:46 <sipa> it's just a good guideline to know what should be a separate commit or not
  64 2012-12-20 00:36:24 <stealth222> anyhow, I could have sworn I got rid of a bunch of those commits in a rebase - but I guess I did not.
  65 2012-12-20 00:36:36 <sipa> you can easily fix that still
  66 2012-12-20 00:36:49 <stealth222> and when I try to rebase from master it gets into some funky "you did not finish cherry-picking" state which is damn annoying
  67 2012-12-20 00:36:52 paybitcoin has joined
  68 2012-12-20 00:37:00 <stealth222> I have no idea wtf that means
  69 2012-12-20 00:37:04 <sipa> oh
  70 2012-12-20 00:37:15 <sipa> i suppose part of the rebase failed, it dropped you in a state to fix it
  71 2012-12-20 00:37:25 paybitcoin1 has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
  72 2012-12-20 00:37:26 <sipa> after that, you need to run git rebase --continue
  73 2012-12-20 00:37:37 <stealth222> I'm not doing any complex branching right now - I just want to squash some commits
  74 2012-12-20 00:37:46 <sipa> ok, step by stem
  75 2012-12-20 00:37:48 <stealth222> but it seems like to really use git you have to understand the bigger picture
  76 2012-12-20 00:37:49 <sipa> *step by step
  77 2012-12-20 00:38:17 <sipa> you're currently in your branch (check by running 'git status', should say 'on branch master') ?
  78 2012-12-20 00:38:38 <stealth222> yes I am
  79 2012-12-20 00:38:54 <midnightmagic> stealth222: I dislike git very much due to its counterintuitive approach for anything more advanced than clone/commit/push/pull
  80 2012-12-20 00:38:56 <sipa> run 'git log' to see the current list of commits in that branch
  81 2012-12-20 00:39:20 <stealth222> ok
  82 2012-12-20 00:39:22 <sipa> to see nothing's missing
  83 2012-12-20 00:39:23 <sipa> ok
  84 2012-12-20 00:39:49 <sipa> do a 'git fetch upstream', to fetch the last stuff in master (i think nothing changed, but it won't hurt)
  85 2012-12-20 00:40:04 <stealth222> ok
  86 2012-12-20 00:40:20 <sipa> do 'git rebase -i upstream/master'
  87 2012-12-20 00:40:39 <sipa> it should pop up an editor with the list of commits that are not yet in upstream/master
  88 2012-12-20 00:40:44 <stealth222> should I restore the README file before doing that?
  89 2012-12-20 00:40:46 TwilightSparklee has joined
  90 2012-12-20 00:40:56 <stealth222> or will I take care of that in the merge?
  91 2012-12-20 00:41:58 <stealth222> ok, I get the editor
  92 2012-12-20 00:41:58 <sipa> whatever you like
  93 2012-12-20 00:42:14 <sipa> first, think about what commits you want
  94 2012-12-20 00:42:28 <sipa> all stuff for the new RPC can go in one commit
  95 2012-12-20 00:42:46 <sipa> but it seems you also changed some things for importprivkey?
  96 2012-12-20 00:42:59 <stealth222> I did but changed them back
  97 2012-12-20 00:43:44 <sipa> ok, so i think you can just turn everything in one commit
  98 2012-12-20 00:43:51 <stealth222> alright, sounds good
  99 2012-12-20 00:43:54 <stealth222> how do I do that?
 100 2012-12-20 00:44:09 <stealth222> and should I replace the README file before doing that?
 101 2012-12-20 00:44:19 <sipa> you can
 102 2012-12-20 00:44:29 <sipa> but you're already in the editor
 103 2012-12-20 00:44:31 <sipa> let's fix that later
 104 2012-12-20 00:44:39 <stealth222> ok
 105 2012-12-20 00:44:50 <sipa> make the first commit a 'reword', and all the rest 'fixup'
 106 2012-12-20 00:45:17 <stealth222> by "first" you mean the one at the top? because they are in opposite order to when I do a git log
 107 2012-12-20 00:45:19 TwilightSparklee has quit (Client Quit)
 108 2012-12-20 00:45:22 <denisx> sipa: very brave to guide one through rebase -i ;)
 109 2012-12-20 00:45:46 <sipa> stealth222: in the editor they should be in chronological order
 110 2012-12-20 00:45:50 <stealth222> ok
 111 2012-12-20 00:45:55 <sipa> so by top i mean oldest
 112 2012-12-20 00:46:50 <stealth222> ok, then just save
 113 2012-12-20 00:46:52 <stealth222> yes?
 114 2012-12-20 00:46:56 <sipa> indeed, and exit
 115 2012-12-20 00:47:57 <stealth222> ok, donw
 116 2012-12-20 00:47:59 <stealth222> *done
 117 2012-12-20 00:48:17 <sipa> now it should pop up an editor to ask you the commit message for the first commit
 118 2012-12-20 00:48:23 <stealth222> yes, did that
 119 2012-12-20 00:48:35 <stealth222> "Successfully rebased and updated refs/heads/master."
 120 2012-12-20 00:48:38 <sipa> as this will become the commit that contains everything, describe whatever you like here
 121 2012-12-20 00:48:48 <sipa> oh, you're already through :)
 122 2012-12-20 00:48:58 <stealth222> so now push?
 123 2012-12-20 00:49:02 <sipa> you can
 124 2012-12-20 00:49:03 <midnightmagic> i hate how git punishes you for maintaining long-lived branches.
 125 2012-12-20 00:49:05 <stealth222> any special options needed on the push?
 126 2012-12-20 00:49:07 <sipa> you'll need to push -f
 127 2012-12-20 00:49:13 <sipa> as you're changing history
 128 2012-12-20 00:49:16 <stealth222> ok
 129 2012-12-20 00:49:39 <lianj> also maybe look at it first with gitk --all or something
 130 2012-12-20 00:49:39 <stealth222> done
 131 2012-12-20 00:50:23 <sipa>  now to fix the readme
 132 2012-12-20 00:51:39 <stealth222> I can just manually replace the file - but I'm guessing git prefers you to do it in some far more complicated way :)
 133 2012-12-20 00:51:51 <sipa> go ahead then however you like
 134 2012-12-20 00:52:10 <stealth222> if I replace the file I'll have to add a new commit, then do a new rebase, yes?
 135 2012-12-20 00:52:23 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 136 2012-12-20 00:52:24 <sipa> yes, but there's a shortcut
 137 2012-12-20 00:52:28 <stealth222> oh?
 138 2012-12-20 00:52:34 <sipa> when committing, pass --amend
 139 2012-12-20 00:52:47 <sipa> which will modify the last commit, instead of making a new one
 140 2012-12-20 00:53:01 <stealth222> that would have been nice to know a while back - lol :)
 141 2012-12-20 00:53:17 <etotheipi_> sipa: did we ever finalize a method for converting a master seed into a master BIP 32 root key?
 142 2012-12-20 00:53:18 <sipa> i think the text currently in your readme would be a great commit message
 143 2012-12-20 00:53:57 <etotheipi_> or is that going to be an implementation-dependent proces?
 144 2012-12-20 00:54:08 <sipa> etotheipi_: i prefer keeping it as in the BIP text currently (HMAC-SHA512), but that doesn't mean another step can be used to generate the master itself
 145 2012-12-20 00:54:12 <sipa> *can't
 146 2012-12-20 00:54:28 <etotheipi_> gokay
 147 2012-12-20 00:54:32 <etotheipi_> *okay
 148 2012-12-20 00:54:38 <stealth222> is there a simple way to pull the README file from the upstream repo into my local repo?
 149 2012-12-20 00:55:17 <etotheipi_> sipa: though I'm still fine with what you proposed, and happy to put it in if you think it will be used in Bitcoin-Qt
 150 2012-12-20 00:55:17 <stealth222> I could just copy it from another clone I have - but I take it there's a better way
 151 2012-12-20 00:55:36 <sipa> stealth222: yeah, you can use git reset on just one file
 152 2012-12-20 00:55:41 <etotheipi_> (the KDF that requires N zero-bits after N hashes)
 153 2012-12-20 00:55:48 <stealth222> git reset README.md?
 154 2012-12-20 00:56:17 <sipa> stealth222: git reset HEAD~ -- README.md
 155 2012-12-20 00:56:56 <sipa> hmm, not enough
 156 2012-12-20 00:58:09 <stealth222> so now git commit --amend?
 157 2012-12-20 00:58:30 <sipa> well check whether README was actually reset
 158 2012-12-20 00:58:36 <stealth222> it was
 159 2012-12-20 00:58:51 <sipa> git commit -a --amend
 160 2012-12-20 00:59:04 <sipa> (the -a means include all changes in the current working dir)
 161 2012-12-20 00:59:15 <stealth222> right, I've seen that -a before
 162 2012-12-20 00:59:17 rdymac has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 163 2012-12-20 00:59:29 <stealth222> used it, even :)
 164 2012-12-20 01:00:06 <stealth222> alright, pushed
 165 2012-12-20 01:00:28 <stealth222> argh
 166 2012-12-20 01:00:29 <sipa> it's not changed
 167 2012-12-20 01:00:33 <stealth222> still shows the old README
 168 2012-12-20 01:00:50 <sipa> yes, i don't think that reset command was right; i'm still fuzzy about the details of it myself
 169 2012-12-20 01:01:52 <stealth222> I think I need to do a checkout as well
 170 2012-12-20 01:02:15 <sipa> no
 171 2012-12-20 01:02:24 <sipa> checkout is for switching branches
 172 2012-12-20 01:02:30 <stealth222> ok
 173 2012-12-20 01:02:34 <stealth222> it's not replacing the README file
 174 2012-12-20 01:02:46 <stealth222> at least in my working directory
 175 2012-12-20 01:02:52 <sipa> that's what i thought :)
 176 2012-12-20 01:02:55 TwilightSparklee has joined
 177 2012-12-20 01:03:38 <stealth222> I'll just copy it over from another clone
 178 2012-12-20 01:03:42 <sipa> yeah
 179 2012-12-20 01:03:46 <stealth222> I'll figure out how to do it more cleanly some other time
 180 2012-12-20 01:03:47 Nolan330 has joined
 181 2012-12-20 01:03:51 Nolan330 has left ()
 182 2012-12-20 01:04:40 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
 183 2012-12-20 01:05:01 <stealth222> ok, done
 184 2012-12-20 01:07:54 <stealth222> so should I post a comment about it in places like https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1653 ?
 185 2012-12-20 01:08:10 <gmaxwell> sure.
 186 2012-12-20 01:09:51 nus has joined
 187 2012-12-20 01:10:06 <stealth222> should I put a link to my repo in the comment? or is there another way that github does it?
 188 2012-12-20 01:11:31 <sipa> no need
 189 2012-12-20 01:12:37 <stealth222> oh well, I put the link there anyway
 190 2012-12-20 01:13:32 <sipa> really, no need
 191 2012-12-20 01:13:51 <stealth222> I already did, though - lol
 192 2012-12-20 01:13:53 <sipa> github already knows what your repo is, and will track and show changes to it
 193 2012-12-20 01:13:59 <gmaxwell> stealth222: I changed it to a link to the pull request.
 194 2012-12-20 01:14:22 <stealth222> ah, ok. cool, thanks
 195 2012-12-20 01:15:32 <stealth222> thank you guys so much for your help
 196 2012-12-20 01:15:50 <stealth222> hopefully you won
 197 2012-12-20 01:16:00 <stealth222> you won't need to be holding my hand this much in the future :)
 198 2012-12-20 01:16:22 <gmaxwell> Software development is a team sport.
 199 2012-12-20 01:16:40 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: not for some of us hermits!
 200 2012-12-20 01:16:58 <gmaxwell> stealth222: hopefully you won't mind when we nitpick your pull and have you change a bunch of stuff. :P
 201 2012-12-20 01:17:32 <stealth222> as long as we're making progress and this stuff is actually going to be useful I have no problem with that :)
 202 2012-12-20 01:18:06 <stealth222> I've been developing on the bitcoin sidelines for far too long - I'm sick of having to maintain a completely separate codebase for everything I do
 203 2012-12-20 01:18:42 <gmaxwell> More contributors is good and important— the pipeline to merging can be fairly long, but please don't let that put you off.
 204 2012-12-20 01:20:00 <stealth222> these features I'm working on are not just "would be nice to have" functionality but essential for several applications I've written. It would be so nice if the main branch of bitcoind supported much of this out-of-the-box without having to have my own custom builds or entirely separate processes
 205 2012-12-20 01:21:38 <gmaxwell> stealth222: sure. At least for things which are generally useful (e.g. not just interesting to you) thats a good plan. It can just take a while to get things reviewed and tested and api changes hammered out, since once something goes in its harder to take it back out again since people will begin depending on it.
 206 2012-12-20 01:21:59 <stealth222> yes, of course
 207 2012-12-20 01:22:56 <stealth222> anyhow, gotta go - thanks again, guys
 208 2012-12-20 01:31:24 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
 209 2012-12-20 01:32:56 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
 210 2012-12-20 01:36:03 maaku has joined
 211 2012-12-20 01:39:28 maaku has quit (Client Quit)
 212 2012-12-20 01:46:00 t7 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 213 2012-12-20 01:49:03 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: is IRC testnet3 still broken for you?  See Laszlo's response?
 214 2012-12-20 01:49:44 <sipa> where?
 215 2012-12-20 01:51:33 <jgarzik> sipa: gmaxwell complained about it here.  I emailed laslzo, and CC'd gmaxwell.  Private email, but I don't mind discussing it
 216 2012-12-20 01:51:50 <jgarzik> <gmaxwell> irc.lfnet.org is now suppressing /who is all the bitcoin
 217 2012-12-20 01:51:50 <jgarzik> idling channels, including #bitcoinTEST
 218 2012-12-20 01:51:50 <jgarzik> <gmaxwell> er #bitcoinTEST3
 219 2012-12-20 01:51:55 <jgarzik> sipa: ^ complaint
 220 2012-12-20 01:52:49 <sipa> didn't it do that before?
 221 2012-12-20 01:54:45 <gmaxwell> sipa: no.
 222 2012-12-20 01:55:47 <gmaxwell> jgarzik: /who works in #bitcoinTEST3 for me now but not #bitcoin01
 223 2012-12-20 01:55:57 <gmaxwell> sipa: before it just returned partial /whos.
 224 2012-12-20 01:56:01 <sipa> oh
 225 2012-12-20 01:56:24 <gmaxwell> oh it just worked for me in #bitcoin01
 226 2012-12-20 01:56:44 RainbowDashh has joined
 227 2012-12-20 01:56:48 <gmaxwell> weird. I tried it again an hour or so ago and it wasn't working then.
 228 2012-12-20 01:58:09 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: what lfnet server are you using?
 229 2012-12-20 01:58:25 <jgarzik> gmaxwell: or connection DNS name, actually
 230 2012-12-20 01:59:47 <jgarzik> wfm
 231 2012-12-20 02:01:37 <gmaxwell> as mentioned, WFM now, I've been using the irc.lfnet.org name.
 232 2012-12-20 02:04:41 <jgarzik> hmmm
 233 2012-12-20 02:05:00 <gmaxwell> one of the comments he made was that maybe a server was desynced.
 234 2012-12-20 02:05:02 <jgarzik> xchat did not pull up a list of nicks in the channel... but a manual "/who *" worked
 235 2012-12-20 02:05:10 <jgarzik> for #bitcoin01
 236 2012-12-20 02:05:23 <jgarzik> unable to reproduce behavior, but definitely saw it
 237 2012-12-20 02:05:23 <gmaxwell> yes, it's not whoing on connect but it was like that before I think.
 238 2012-12-20 02:05:33 <jgarzik> ok
 239 2012-12-20 02:08:05 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'm surprised the channel isn't +m...
 240 2012-12-20 02:11:07 <sipa> ha!
 241 2012-12-20 02:12:24 harkon has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 242 2012-12-20 02:19:36 EPiSKiNG- has joined
 243 2012-12-20 02:22:12 <sipa> ooh, 20/12/2012 !
 244 2012-12-20 02:22:47 <gmaxwell> Whats special about that? oohhh.
 245 2012-12-20 02:23:00 <gmaxwell> okay but what crazy people do day month year? :P
 246 2012-12-20 02:23:13 gozoner has quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
 247 2012-12-20 02:23:41 <sipa> yeah, i agree, year-month-day is the only reasonable order :p
 248 2012-12-20 02:24:55 <gmaxwell> With or without a random letter thrown in? :P  ...
 249 2012-12-20 02:25:09 <gmaxwell> I think the US is gradually changing to Y-M-D.
 250 2012-12-20 02:26:53 <sipa> no reason for a mixed-endian date format
 251 2012-12-20 02:26:59 <sipa> the world is not a PDP-11
 252 2012-12-20 02:28:27 <gmaxwell> too bad for all jeff's dependencies.. would be fun to get picocoin running on a PDP-11... but getting glib on something pre-ansic sounds impossibly painful.
 253 2012-12-20 02:29:33 <sipa> loi
 254 2012-12-20 02:43:10 <stealth222> I hope the entire world changes to YYYY-MM-DD. Makes collation much easier :)
 255 2012-12-20 02:49:04 skeledrew has joined
 256 2012-12-20 02:53:30 freakazoid has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 257 2012-12-20 03:07:19 D34TH has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 258 2012-12-20 03:11:29 veerboot has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 259 2012-12-20 03:11:58 owowo has quit (Quit: sayonara)
 260 2012-12-20 03:13:07 <Luke-Jr> I still prefer tonal.
 261 2012-12-20 03:13:08 <sipa> stealth222: wallet and block verification are already quite separate, actually
 262 2012-12-20 03:13:43 <sipa> stealth222: but block verification doesn't track transactions, you still need the wallet to do that
 263 2012-12-20 03:14:13 <sipa> for example for unconfirmed transactions, for comments on them, for account info, ...
 264 2012-12-20 03:14:16 <etotheipi_> sipa, gmaxwell: so are you going to use the KDF sipa described a while ago for converting master seed to master extended key?
 265 2012-12-20 03:14:22 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 266 2012-12-20 03:14:38 <etotheipi_> even if it's not part of the BIP 32 spec, I'd like to follow it
 267 2012-12-20 03:14:47 <sipa> etotheipi_: i certainly wouldn't mind doing that, but there are already several other ideas
 268 2012-12-20 03:14:50 d4de_ has joined
 269 2012-12-20 03:15:27 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: did you ever figure out if bip32 needed to be modified to accomidate your provable in chain addresses?
 270 2012-12-20 03:16:09 stealth222 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 271 2012-12-20 03:16:30 veerboot has joined
 272 2012-12-20 03:16:35 <sipa> it's compatible... just provide P_parent and I_L
 273 2012-12-20 03:17:11 <gmaxwell> Thought it was. OK.
 274 2012-12-20 03:17:21 <etotheipi_> I want to double check it for my own sanity, but yes it appears so
 275 2012-12-20 03:17:23 <sipa> etotheipi_ (or roconnor?) came up with something more complex, but i fail to see the necessity
 276 2012-12-20 03:17:24 <gmaxwell> I'm glad I have you guys to think for me.
 277 2012-12-20 03:17:41 <etotheipi_> sipa: are you talking about thanke?
 278 2012-12-20 03:17:44 <sipa> no
 279 2012-12-20 03:18:25 <etotheipi_> what was more complex?  this is pretty damned simple actually (and roconner came up with it, I only asked the question)
 280 2012-12-20 03:18:47 <sipa> it used P*H(chaincode) or so
 281 2012-12-20 03:19:02 <sipa> instead of the normal BIP32 derivation
 282 2012-12-20 03:19:17 <etotheipi_> sipa: that specific derivation wasn't necessary
 283 2012-12-20 03:19:24 <etotheipi_> it was just illustritive
 284 2012-12-20 03:19:26 <sipa> ok
 285 2012-12-20 03:19:53 <etotheipi_> and I wasn't sure that yet that BIP 32 satisified the condition that you can send them the scalar without giving them the chaincode
 286 2012-12-20 03:20:36 <sipa> etotheipi_: also, latest version of gavin's payment protocol proposal has a some future extensibility where the script is derived by the receiver, based on a pubkey-in-cert and hash(paymentrequest) itself
 287 2012-12-20 03:21:00 <sipa> which would accomplish the same thing
 288 2012-12-20 03:21:04 <etotheipi_> cool
 289 2012-12-20 03:21:15 <etotheipi_> I think this is an extremely valuable capability to preserve
 290 2012-12-20 03:21:20 <etotheipi_> even if it's not used right away
 291 2012-12-20 03:21:21 <sipa> it's not defined yet, but there's a comment about it
 292 2012-12-20 03:22:19 <etotheipi_> most definitely a major advantage for Bitcoin compared to other payment systems... the fact that it CAN be done
 293 2012-12-20 03:22:19 * sipa zZzZ
 294 2012-12-20 03:22:37 <etotheipi_> alright, back to my new wallets
 295 2012-12-20 03:22:51 <etotheipi_> sipa: before you ZzZz
 296 2012-12-20 03:23:23 <etotheipi_> were you considering the more-advanced/flexible version of your KDF?  I can go back and dig apart your email if you are
 297 2012-12-20 03:23:39 <etotheipi_> or were you okay sticking with the simpler, inflexible (N^4) version
 298 2012-12-20 03:23:41 <etotheipi_> ?
 299 2012-12-20 03:27:11 TheEslbear has joined
 300 2012-12-20 03:27:55 Evilmax has joined
 301 2012-12-20 03:29:24 sgornick has left ("Ex-Chat")
 302 2012-12-20 03:30:51 Eslbaer has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 303 2012-12-20 03:34:27 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 304 2012-12-20 03:34:32 brwyatt is now known as Away!~brwyatt@brwyatt.net|brwyatt
 305 2012-12-20 03:35:02 roconnor has joined
 306 2012-12-20 03:46:09 fiesh has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
 307 2012-12-20 03:49:02 fiesh has joined
 308 2012-12-20 03:54:57 unknown45682 has joined
 309 2012-12-20 04:01:31 unknown45682 has quit ()
 310 2012-12-20 04:01:40 swulf-- has joined
 311 2012-12-20 04:01:50 unknown45682 has joined
 312 2012-12-20 04:01:58 <swulf--> is it possible to determine the originating address in a transaction using the bitcoind json cmdline?
 313 2012-12-20 04:02:56 <Luke-Jr> swulf--: transactions don't have originating addresses
 314 2012-12-20 04:04:07 <swulf--> i know transactions done
 315 2012-12-20 04:04:10 <swulf--> don't*
 316 2012-12-20 04:04:16 <swulf--> but in a transaction, can get the list of inputs?
 317 2012-12-20 04:04:26 <swulf--> from the command-line, specifically
 318 2012-12-20 04:04:40 <Luke-Jr> getrawtransaction
 319 2012-12-20 04:05:14 <swulf--> $ bin/bitcoind getrawtransaction e44cce8f31d2817def07be3c720bdede2eba59837357acaca3c8d631f90e73ba
 320 2012-12-20 04:05:14 <swulf--> error: {"code":-5,"message":"No information available about transaction"}
 321 2012-12-20 04:05:40 <swulf--> does it only accept special txids?
 322 2012-12-20 04:09:04 gozoner has joined
 323 2012-12-20 04:09:37 <gmaxwell> swulf--: are you running 0.8/git?
 324 2012-12-20 04:10:03 <gmaxwell> if so it only accepts wallet, mempool, and unspent txids.
 325 2012-12-20 04:12:51 <swulf--> i'm running from git, yeah
 326 2012-12-20 04:13:11 <swulf--> this txid is actually a txid gained from listtransactions api
 327 2012-12-20 04:13:17 <swulf--> so, it *ought* to work, right?
 328 2012-12-20 04:18:00 <etotheipi_> sipa, gmaxwell:  additionally, did we agree that 100% of public keys in BIP 32 will be compressed?  at every step?
 329 2012-12-20 04:22:31 gozoner has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
 330 2012-12-20 04:24:32 TheSeven has quit (Disconnected by services)
 331 2012-12-20 04:24:43 [7] has joined
 332 2012-12-20 04:26:56 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 333 2012-12-20 04:29:51 paraipan has joined
 334 2012-12-20 04:32:26 olp has joined
 335 2012-12-20 04:34:56 roconnor has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
 336 2012-12-20 04:52:09 <swulf--> is there a way to get non-wallet transactions via the command-line?
 337 2012-12-20 05:00:26 <gmaxwell> swulf--: not if they're spent, at least not currently in git.  0.7.1 can however.
 338 2012-12-20 05:10:43 <swulf--> hmm
 339 2012-12-20 05:21:14 freewil has quit (Quit: Leaving)
 340 2012-12-20 05:38:26 paraipan has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 341 2012-12-20 05:40:33 d4de_ is now known as d4de
 342 2012-12-20 05:43:58 jchysk has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 343 2012-12-20 05:49:48 paraipan has joined
 344 2012-12-20 05:52:34 ciphermonk has joined
 345 2012-12-20 05:54:06 toffoo has quit ()
 346 2012-12-20 05:57:02 paraipan has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 347 2012-12-20 05:57:25 jchysk has joined
 348 2012-12-20 06:09:09 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 349 2012-12-20 06:11:33 Hasimir has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 350 2012-12-20 06:12:11 Hasimir has joined
 351 2012-12-20 06:12:23 Hasimir is now known as Guest68999
 352 2012-12-20 06:17:48 RainbowDashh has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 353 2012-12-20 06:22:38 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 354 2012-12-20 06:39:55 RazielZ has joined
 355 2012-12-20 06:41:30 enmaku has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 356 2012-12-20 06:46:05 <swulf--> Is GetTransaction() special in any way?  I mean, why would rpc call 'gettransaction' return a result with a given txid but getrawtransaction error with {"code":-5,"message":"No information available about transaction"} with the same txid?
 357 2012-12-20 06:49:44 ThomasV has joined
 358 2012-12-20 06:51:43 d4de has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 359 2012-12-20 06:53:48 d4de has joined
 360 2012-12-20 06:54:16 <Luke-Jr> http://marylandpirates.com/wp-content/uploads/rsc_policy_brief_--_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012.pdf
 361 2012-12-20 07:11:32 brwyatt has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 362 2012-12-20 07:32:17 christian has joined
 363 2012-12-20 07:32:40 christian is now known as Guest45806
 364 2012-12-20 07:32:59 Guest45806 is now known as cande
 365 2012-12-20 07:34:06 <cande> hi guys
 366 2012-12-20 07:34:40 <cande> what is the normal way to run a bitcoin deamon and let others use this to verify transactions?
 367 2012-12-20 07:34:54 rieno has joined
 368 2012-12-20 07:34:56 <cande> is it via the RPC command? or something else?
 369 2012-12-20 07:40:43 brwyatt has joined
 370 2012-12-20 07:41:05 harkon has joined
 371 2012-12-20 07:47:22 CodesInChaos has joined
 372 2012-12-20 07:47:59 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
 373 2012-12-20 07:49:25 swulf-- has joined
 374 2012-12-20 07:54:00 ovidiusoft has joined
 375 2012-12-20 07:57:23 libcoin has joined
 376 2012-12-20 08:10:07 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
 377 2012-12-20 08:10:41 <Luke-Jr> cande: huh?
 378 2012-12-20 08:11:05 <cande> hm
 379 2012-12-20 08:11:16 <Luke-Jr> cande: you mean mining? usually you do it cooperatively with other miners on a pool
 380 2012-12-20 08:11:21 <Luke-Jr> using a mining program like BFGMiner
 381 2012-12-20 08:11:27 <cande> no mining
 382 2012-12-20 08:11:27 swulf-- has joined
 383 2012-12-20 08:12:01 <cande> it's for eshops to verify payments
 384 2012-12-20 08:13:00 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 385 2012-12-20 08:14:07 <Luke-Jr> cande: oh, you can do that via RPC yeah
 386 2012-12-20 08:14:34 <Luke-Jr> cande: use -blocknotify to run a script when there's a new block; the script can call listtransactions to see the status of anything received
 387 2012-12-20 08:15:11 <cande> is there any example script of this?
 388 2012-12-20 08:15:15 <cande> for linux?
 389 2012-12-20 08:18:41 <cande> okej, that looks like a nice solution
 390 2012-12-20 08:28:52 swulf--1 has joined
 391 2012-12-20 08:31:41 swulf-- has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 392 2012-12-20 08:31:56 mmoya has joined
 393 2012-12-20 08:45:37 Nicksasa has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 394 2012-12-20 08:52:07 Nicksasa has joined
 395 2012-12-20 09:03:25 Joric has joined
 396 2012-12-20 09:05:32 BlackPrapor has joined
 397 2012-12-20 09:14:14 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
 398 2012-12-20 09:14:14 PhantomSpark has joined
 399 2012-12-20 09:14:29 Arnavion has joined
 400 2012-12-20 09:14:50 PhantomSpark has joined
 401 2012-12-20 09:16:01 ciphermonk has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 402 2012-12-20 09:17:10 ciphermonk has joined
 403 2012-12-20 09:19:20 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 404 2012-12-20 09:19:26 PhantomSpark has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 405 2012-12-20 09:23:10 Arnavion has quit (Quit: Arnavion)
 406 2012-12-20 09:23:30 Arnavion has joined
 407 2012-12-20 09:24:10 Arnavion has quit (Client Quit)
 408 2012-12-20 09:25:06 Arnavion has joined
 409 2012-12-20 09:25:37 Guest68999 is now known as Hasimir
 410 2012-12-20 09:25:38 Hasimir has quit (Changing host)
 411 2012-12-20 09:25:38 Hasimir has joined
 412 2012-12-20 09:31:25 darkip3 has joined
 413 2012-12-20 09:32:44 Guest42025 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 414 2012-12-20 09:39:31 Jiffy has joined
 415 2012-12-20 09:46:13 Jiffy has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 416 2012-12-20 09:50:21 one_zero has quit ()
 417 2012-12-20 09:54:25 Nicksasa has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 418 2012-12-20 09:59:09 Nicksasa has joined
 419 2012-12-20 10:02:02 stealth222 has joined
 420 2012-12-20 10:03:30 Jiffy has joined
 421 2012-12-20 10:03:38 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 422 2012-12-20 10:06:33 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 423 2012-12-20 10:06:50 Jiffy_ has joined
 424 2012-12-20 10:10:44 slush has joined
 425 2012-12-20 10:10:59 brwyatt is now known as brwyatt|Away
 426 2012-12-20 10:11:13 cosurgi has joined
 427 2012-12-20 10:11:55 meLon_ has joined
 428 2012-12-20 10:12:04 Eliel_ has joined
 429 2012-12-20 10:13:26 pumpkin has joined
 430 2012-12-20 10:13:40 Nicksasa_ has joined
 431 2012-12-20 10:16:20 pumpkin is now known as copumpkin
 432 2012-12-20 10:19:03 ThomasV has joined
 433 2012-12-20 10:22:07 Joric has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
 434 2012-12-20 10:25:17 d4de has joined
 435 2012-12-20 10:25:25 Nicksasa_ has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 436 2012-12-20 10:26:37 agricocb has joined
 437 2012-12-20 10:26:39 drizztbsd has joined
 438 2012-12-20 10:29:03 Evilmax has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 439 2012-12-20 10:31:16 Nicksasa has joined
 440 2012-12-20 10:33:41 apexseals has joined
 441 2012-12-20 10:33:44 Jiffy__ has joined
 442 2012-12-20 10:34:46 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Quitte)
 443 2012-12-20 10:35:09 Habbie_ has joined
 444 2012-12-20 10:35:10 BTCOxygen has joined
 445 2012-12-20 10:36:59 luke-jr_ has joined
 446 2012-12-20 10:37:08 Ploo_ has joined
 447 2012-12-20 10:37:43 Agath_PD has joined
 448 2012-12-20 10:37:53 dstien_ has joined
 449 2012-12-20 10:38:14 sneak_ has joined
 450 2012-12-20 10:38:29 Bwild_ has joined
 451 2012-12-20 10:38:40 Nicksasa_ has joined
 452 2012-12-20 10:38:51 CodesInChaos has joined
 453 2012-12-20 10:38:54 dooglus has joined
 454 2012-12-20 10:38:54 dooglus has quit (Changing host)
 455 2012-12-20 10:38:54 dooglus has joined
 456 2012-12-20 10:39:50 spaola_out has joined
 457 2012-12-20 10:40:21 Jezzz_ has joined
 458 2012-12-20 10:42:19 dlb76 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 459 2012-12-20 10:42:19 Habbie has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 460 2012-12-20 10:42:19 dstien has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 461 2012-12-20 10:42:19 jine has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 462 2012-12-20 10:42:19 npouillard has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 463 2012-12-20 10:42:19 upb has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 464 2012-12-20 10:42:19 Jezzz has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 465 2012-12-20 10:42:19 ville-_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 466 2012-12-20 10:42:19 spaola has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 467 2012-12-20 10:42:20 dooglus_ has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 468 2012-12-20 10:42:20 Pucilowski has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
 469 2012-12-20 10:42:21 jine has joined
 470 2012-12-20 10:42:21 upb has joined
 471 2012-12-20 10:42:21 mmoya_ has joined
 472 2012-12-20 10:42:22 upb has quit (Changing host)
 473 2012-12-20 10:42:22 upb has joined
 474 2012-12-20 10:42:34 cheebydi_ has joined
 475 2012-12-20 10:42:51 jine is now known as Guest75568
 476 2012-12-20 10:43:00 JZavala has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 477 2012-12-20 10:43:00 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 478 2012-12-20 10:43:00 _flow_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 479 2012-12-20 10:43:00 nym has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 480 2012-12-20 10:43:00 sneak has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 481 2012-12-20 10:43:00 Bwild has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 482 2012-12-20 10:43:00 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 483 2012-12-20 10:43:01 TD[gone] has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 484 2012-12-20 10:43:01 Jiffy_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 485 2012-12-20 10:43:01 mmoya has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 486 2012-12-20 10:43:01 jchysk has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 487 2012-12-20 10:43:01 Luke-Jr has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 488 2012-12-20 10:43:01 agath has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 489 2012-12-20 10:43:01 DBordello has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 490 2012-12-20 10:43:01 Lexa has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 491 2012-12-20 10:43:01 cheebydi has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 492 2012-12-20 10:43:01 forrestv has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 493 2012-12-20 10:43:01 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 494 2012-12-20 10:43:02 _flow_ has joined
 495 2012-12-20 10:43:02 DBordello has joined
 496 2012-12-20 10:43:03 cheebydi_ is now known as cheebydi
 497 2012-12-20 10:43:06 DBordello has quit (Changing host)
 498 2012-12-20 10:43:06 DBordello has joined
 499 2012-12-20 10:43:16 forrestv has joined
 500 2012-12-20 10:43:26 Nicksasa_ has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 501 2012-12-20 10:43:48 ville-_ has joined
 502 2012-12-20 10:44:25 jchysk has joined
 503 2012-12-20 10:45:03 dvide has joined
 504 2012-12-20 10:45:40 Nicksasa has joined
 505 2012-12-20 10:46:49 spaola_out is now known as spaola
 506 2012-12-20 10:49:35 jrmithdobbs has joined
 507 2012-12-20 10:50:42 MrTiggr has joined
 508 2012-12-20 10:51:53 <stealth222> I see in coding.text that variable names should begin with the type but this convention has been violated in many places. In adding new code, is it considered more important to stick to these guidelines or to blend in with the style of the surrounding code?
 509 2012-12-20 10:52:49 <stealth222> *coding.txt
 510 2012-12-20 10:53:42 Jiffy__ has quit (Quit: Verlassend)
 511 2012-12-20 11:00:18 <luke-jr_> stealth222: it should be possible to do both, but the variable naming rules are mostly ignored these days
 512 2012-12-20 11:01:12 <stealth222> I'm looking to start adding multiwallet support - there are a couple issues I'd like to discuss first
 513 2012-12-20 11:01:31 <stealth222> like, should we allow the user to specify which wallets to load at startup in the config file and via command line arguments
 514 2012-12-20 11:01:35 <stealth222> I think we should
 515 2012-12-20 11:01:44 <stealth222> also, whether we should allow dynamic loading and unloading of wallets
 516 2012-12-20 11:01:46 <stealth222> again, I think we should
 517 2012-12-20 11:02:12 <Jouke> that would be awesome
 518 2012-12-20 11:02:55 <sipa> stealth222: there's already a pullreq to specify the wallet location
 519 2012-12-20 11:03:22 <stealth222> so this would go beyond that
 520 2012-12-20 11:04:17 <stealth222> is there someone working on that feature already, sipa?
 521 2012-12-20 11:04:35 <stealth222> I could build this out in like the next couple days
 522 2012-12-20 11:05:54 <sipa> swulf--1: gettransaction queries the wallet, getrawtransaction queries the blockchain validation system
 523 2012-12-20 11:06:47 <stealth222> the more serious issues pertaining to adding multiwallet support are API changes
 524 2012-12-20 11:06:53 <sipa> swulf--1: those are mostly independent, and as of 0.8, no information about spent txn is kept in the validation db
 525 2012-12-20 11:07:02 <stealth222> there are a couple possibilities I'm thinking:
 526 2012-12-20 11:07:22 <stealth222> 1) RPC calls are context-sensitive...depend on what wallets are currently loaded
 527 2012-12-20 11:07:31 <stealth222> 2) RPC calls must also specify a wallet or list of wallets
 528 2012-12-20 11:08:02 <stealth222> in principle I tend to prefer (2) but it risks breaking the existing API
 529 2012-12-20 11:08:39 <sipa> stealth222: i like having separate username/password per wallet
 530 2012-12-20 11:08:54 <stealth222> yes - I like that, too
 531 2012-12-20 11:09:16 <sipa> stealth222: and someone is planning to abstract the wallet interface better
 532 2012-12-20 11:09:26 <stealth222> who?
 533 2012-12-20 11:09:29 <sipa> look through the pullreqs
 534 2012-12-20 11:10:45 <stealth222> oh, I just saw someone was doing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1974
 535 2012-12-20 11:10:50 <stealth222> I was planning on doing that, too :)
 536 2012-12-20 11:10:58 <stealth222> nice
 537 2012-12-20 11:12:40 antix_ has joined
 538 2012-12-20 11:14:24 <sipa> i was talking about #2075
 539 2012-12-20 11:14:27 Nicksasa has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 540 2012-12-20 11:14:36 <stealth222> yeah, I know - just saw that other one, too
 541 2012-12-20 11:14:48 <sipa> and #1889
 542 2012-12-20 11:14:51 d4de_ has joined
 543 2012-12-20 11:15:10 d4de has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
 544 2012-12-20 11:16:13 Nicksasa has joined
 545 2012-12-20 11:16:46 <stealth222> I have a bunch of ideas I could implement very, very quickly - but I'm a little afraid of diverging too much from the existing architecture and making it difficult to get them integrated
 546 2012-12-20 11:17:50 <stealth222> how do you browse pull requests by number?
 547 2012-12-20 11:18:15 <sipa> ?
 548 2012-12-20 11:18:32 <stealth222> I just see submitted, updated, and popularity
 549 2012-12-20 11:18:39 <stealth222> is there a way to sort them by number?
 550 2012-12-20 11:18:49 Guest75568 is now known as jine
 551 2012-12-20 11:18:54 <sipa> they are sorted by number
 552 2012-12-20 11:19:02 <stealth222> I don't see the numbers
 553 2012-12-20 11:19:18 <sipa> yeah, look at the urls
 554 2012-12-20 11:19:19 jine is now known as Guest44364
 555 2012-12-20 11:19:34 <stealth222> you mean I have to hover over each one to see the number?
 556 2012-12-20 11:19:42 <sipa> uhu
 557 2012-12-20 11:19:44 <stealth222> lol
 558 2012-12-20 11:19:48 <sipa> it's silly
 559 2012-12-20 11:20:06 <sipa> you can see the numbers if you go to issues
 560 2012-12-20 11:20:30 <sipa> as every pullreq has an associated issue with the same number
 561 2012-12-20 11:20:54 <stealth222> I could get dynamic loading/unloading of wallets implemented in a few hours, probably
 562 2012-12-20 11:20:56 <stealth222> lol
 563 2012-12-20 11:21:10 <stealth222> should I just press on with that?
 564 2012-12-20 11:21:28 BlackPrapor has joined
 565 2012-12-20 11:21:38 jdnavarro has joined
 566 2012-12-20 11:21:53 <sipa> i think that's only useful after multiwallet support
 567 2012-12-20 11:22:04 <stealth222> well, I can also add multiwallet support
 568 2012-12-20 11:22:28 <stealth222> and even support for loading wallets across a network
 569 2012-12-20 11:22:42 <stealth222> and synching them
 570 2012-12-20 11:22:49 <sipa> ??
 571 2012-12-20 11:23:27 <stealth222> well, for instance, in some applications I've written I've pregenerated a bunch of bitcoin addresses on an offline machine, copied them over to servers that send payment alerts
 572 2012-12-20 11:23:53 <stealth222> it would be very nice to be able to just push a "watch-only" wallet onto the server
 573 2012-12-20 11:24:01 <luke-jr_> stealth222: HD wallets do that
 574 2012-12-20 11:24:53 <stealth222> what do you mean?
 575 2012-12-20 11:25:21 <stealth222> I don't want the notification servers storing any private keys at all
 576 2012-12-20 11:25:28 <sipa> stealth222: loading a wallet across the network sounds very hard to me
 577 2012-12-20 11:26:03 <stealth222> doesn't sound too hard to me
 578 2012-12-20 11:26:08 <sipa> and dangerous
 579 2012-12-20 11:26:26 <stealth222> we're talking a watch-only wallet
 580 2012-12-20 11:26:26 <sipa> what will you do with the modified wallet?
 581 2012-12-20 11:26:35 antix_ has quit (Quit: Lost terminal)
 582 2012-12-20 11:26:55 <stealth222> I want to be able to easily tell my notification service nodes to watch a particular set of addresses
 583 2012-12-20 11:26:57 <luke-jr_> stealth222: HD wallets enable you to load a single "master" public key once, to match all the derived addresses
 584 2012-12-20 11:27:17 <stealth222> I want to decentralize key generation
 585 2012-12-20 11:27:28 <sipa> read bip32
 586 2012-12-20 11:27:33 <stealth222> not everyone in the organization needs to have access to all acounts
 587 2012-12-20 11:27:52 <sipa> really, read bip32 :)
 588 2012-12-20 11:28:48 <stealth222> bip32 is interesting indeed...
 589 2012-12-20 11:29:08 <stealth222> but surely this isn't something that will be added within the next several days to bitcoind
 590 2012-12-20 11:29:13 <stealth222> whereas what I mentioned earlier could be
 591 2012-12-20 11:29:52 <sipa> i don't see how to do it in a safe/sane way
 592 2012-12-20 11:30:32 <sipa> unless you want nodes to need continuous rescanning, and lose unconfirmed transactions
 593 2012-12-20 11:30:51 <stealth222> I was thinking more along the lines of batching
 594 2012-12-20 11:31:02 <sipa> batching?
 595 2012-12-20 11:31:58 antix_ has joined
 596 2012-12-20 11:31:59 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 597 2012-12-20 11:32:28 <sipa> etotheipi_: yeah, bip32 is compressedkey-only now
 598 2012-12-20 11:33:09 ThomasV has joined
 599 2012-12-20 11:33:29 <stealth222> so here's the architecture I'm envisioning - you have key generating/storing nodes which are secured and do not connect to the p2p network. you copy over only addresses to servers which support, say, web-based shopping carts which provide them to users as needed. then you have notification nodes that send alerts to payment processers
 600 2012-12-20 11:33:54 slush has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 601 2012-12-20 11:34:23 <sipa> yeah, that's exactly what bip32 is intended for
 602 2012-12-20 11:34:51 Nicksasa has joined
 603 2012-12-20 11:35:23 <stealth222> ok, nice
 604 2012-12-20 11:35:43 <sipa> and it won't be implemented in the next few days, but maybe it will before 0.8 is released
 605 2012-12-20 11:37:10 <stealth222> is someone already working on adding this to bitcoind?
 606 2012-12-20 11:37:19 <sipa> yes, me
 607 2012-12-20 11:37:19 <stealth222> and if not, can I volunteer? :)
 608 2012-12-20 11:37:21 <stealth222> ok :)
 609 2012-12-20 11:37:38 <stealth222> how far along are you?
 610 2012-12-20 11:38:12 <stealth222> and do you need/could you use any help?
 611 2012-12-20 11:38:21 <sipa> the key derivation crypto is implemented, and i have an earlier simple but functional deterministic wallet implementation
 612 2012-12-20 11:38:50 <sipa> i do have some other priorities now, though
 613 2012-12-20 11:39:10 <stealth222> I'd be glad to help if it will speed it up
 614 2012-12-20 11:39:20 <stealth222> I'd like to have this implemented like yesterday - lol
 615 2012-12-20 11:40:15 Nicksasa has quit (Excess Flood)
 616 2012-12-20 11:41:14 <sipa> the hardest part won't be implementation
 617 2012-12-20 11:41:36 <sipa> but testing, and convincing others that it is correct :)
 618 2012-12-20 11:41:57 <stealth222> it's a heck of a lot easier to convince others that it is correct when you've already built it and it works
 619 2012-12-20 11:42:17 knotwork has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 620 2012-12-20 11:42:33 Nicksasa has joined
 621 2012-12-20 11:42:34 <sipa> of course
 622 2012-12-20 11:43:05 <stealth222> I'm not a marketer by nature either, sipa - I'm sure marketers would take the opposite view :p
 623 2012-12-20 11:43:33 <sipa> i was talking about the correctness of the implememtation
 624 2012-12-20 11:43:46 <stealth222> you mean cryptographic soundness?
 625 2012-12-20 11:43:52 <sipa> no
 626 2012-12-20 11:44:09 <sipa> i mean that the code doesn't crash
 627 2012-12-20 11:44:26 <sipa> or does weird things to your balance
 628 2012-12-20 11:44:40 <sipa> or has subtile security problems
 629 2012-12-20 11:45:31 <sipa> bip32 being correct in terms of cryptography is omething that should be established before implementation
 630 2012-12-20 11:45:39 <stealth222> of course
 631 2012-12-20 11:46:20 <stealth222> anyhow, point is, the sooner it is implemented the sooner we can get people to try as hard as they can to break it
 632 2012-12-20 11:46:27 <sipa> (and we're reasonably sure about that, but it should be looked at by a real cryptographer at some point...)
 633 2012-12-20 11:46:44 Nicksasa has quit (Excess Flood)
 634 2012-12-20 11:48:16 Nicksasa has joined
 635 2012-12-20 11:48:35 knotwork has joined
 636 2012-12-20 11:49:00 <stealth222> anyhow, I do think that something like bip32 is the direction in which things should go...but for now, I could at least add multiwallet and dynamic wallet loading to bitcoind
 637 2012-12-20 11:49:05 <stealth222> and I could do that fairly quickly
 638 2012-12-20 11:49:22 <stealth222> just trying to figure out where I can best focus my efforts
 639 2012-12-20 11:50:00 <stealth222> forget the network wallet stuff for now
 640 2012-12-20 11:50:09 <stealth222> bip32 seems to be a far better solution to that
 641 2012-12-20 11:50:56 <stealth222> the multiwallet and dynamic wallet loading would just reuse existing code and would be fairly easy to test for correctness
 642 2012-12-20 11:51:41 rdymac has joined
 643 2012-12-20 11:51:56 <stealth222> the API might be a bit tricky, though
 644 2012-12-20 11:52:05 <sipa> i think there's several pitfalls with it
 645 2012-12-20 11:52:05 <stealth222> I could make it be fully backwards compatible
 646 2012-12-20 11:52:16 <sipa> but certainly doable
 647 2012-12-20 11:53:36 <stealth222> it's certainly much less ambitious than bip32...plus, we still need a way to watch arbitrary addresses regardless of scheme used to generate them
 648 2012-12-20 11:55:02 <stealth222> I'm wondering whether it might not be better to have two sibling classes, one for signing-enabled wallets and another for watch-only addresses
 649 2012-12-20 11:55:34 <stealth222> and to perhaps call the second one something other than "Wallet"
 650 2012-12-20 11:57:04 Hasimir has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 651 2012-12-20 11:57:07 <sipa> maybe
 652 2012-12-20 11:57:30 <sipa> the CreateTransaction logic would only be in the second then
 653 2012-12-20 11:57:46 <stealth222> you mean the first one
 654 2012-12-20 11:57:51 <sipa> yes :D
 655 2012-12-20 11:57:54 <sipa> and the encryption logic too
 656 2012-12-20 11:57:59 <stealth222> right
 657 2012-12-20 11:58:14 <sipa> but CKeyStore would probably be shared, even though several of its feature won't be used for watch-only wallets
 658 2012-12-20 11:58:26 <stealth222> right
 659 2012-12-20 11:58:58 <stealth222> no point in rewriting something that already exists unless it offers some significant maintenance or performance advantage
 660 2012-12-20 11:59:31 <sipa> better modularisation is certainly a goal, but often not a priority
 661 2012-12-20 11:59:46 <sipa> though i was it was :)
 662 2012-12-20 12:01:32 <stealth222> right now, the wallet is an application singleton object, yes?
 663 2012-12-20 12:01:42 <sipa> yes, but it's not that hard to change it
 664 2012-12-20 12:01:54 <sipa> you can create a new CWallet, and register it
 665 2012-12-20 12:02:48 <sipa> (never tested, but that was the intention ever since i wrote CWallet)
 666 2012-12-20 12:03:01 <stealth222> right - so the trickiest part is probably the API
 667 2012-12-20 12:03:16 Nicksasa has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
 668 2012-12-20 12:03:25 <sipa> indeed, and that is why making it decide based on username/password would be so nice - no API changes at all :)
 669 2012-12-20 12:03:57 Hasimir has joined
 670 2012-12-20 12:04:10 Hasimir is now known as Guest65084
 671 2012-12-20 12:04:40 <stealth222> would the login be per-session? per-connection (REST)?
 672 2012-12-20 12:05:09 <stealth222> could multiple clients login under separate accounts simultaneously?
 673 2012-12-20 12:06:11 <stealth222> also, with dynamic loading and unloading there's the issue of rescanning
 674 2012-12-20 12:06:22 <stealth222> that might be nontrivial
 675 2012-12-20 12:07:11 <stealth222> and obviously loading and unloading for each connection is insane
 676 2012-12-20 12:07:27 Nicksasa has joined
 677 2012-12-20 12:07:27 Nicksasa has quit (Excess Flood)
 678 2012-12-20 12:09:16 Nicksasa has joined
 679 2012-12-20 12:10:02 <sipa> stealth222: JSON-RPC isn't persistent, afaik
 680 2012-12-20 12:10:17 <sipa> so you can't really have sessions
 681 2012-12-20 12:10:42 <sipa> and dynamic loading indeed has the problem of rescanning
 682 2012-12-20 12:11:17 <sipa> so at least initially i'd just say specify all your wallets in the config, with associated username/password
 683 2012-12-20 12:11:37 <sipa> also, not sure you're aware of how the BDB environment works?
 684 2012-12-20 12:11:48 <stealth222> not at a low level
 685 2012-12-20 12:12:38 <sipa> no, but you're aware that every database requires a BDB env to work in, and we try to make it look like databases are single files by detaching them from the env at shutdown?
 686 2012-12-20 12:13:59 <stealth222> don't really have much experience with BDB - not sure what you mean
 687 2012-12-20 12:14:37 <sipa> so in BDB you don't just have databases - every database is part of a database environment (a directory with several files in it, including replay logs)
 688 2012-12-20 12:14:47 Nicksasa has quit (Excess Flood)
 689 2012-12-20 12:14:49 <sipa> and in case of a crash, you need the environment to be present for recovery
 690 2012-12-20 12:15:17 <sipa> you can ask BDB to remove the connection between a database and an env, so it can be moved to a different env
 691 2012-12-20 12:15:28 <sipa> that's what we do at shutdown, so wallet files can be moved around
 692 2012-12-20 12:15:45 <sipa> it doesn't work in case of an unclean shutdown, however
 693 2012-12-20 12:16:17 Nicksasa has joined
 694 2012-12-20 12:16:32 <stealth222> so if there's an unclean shutdown and I replace wallet.dat, next time I run it will complain?
 695 2012-12-20 12:17:13 <sipa> the other way around: if you have an unclean shutdown, and then move that wallet.dat file to another system
 696 2012-12-20 12:17:18 <sipa> it will just fail to load your wallet
 697 2012-12-20 12:17:33 <stealth222> but if I restart it will fix the wallet?
 698 2012-12-20 12:17:36 <sipa> no
 699 2012-12-20 12:17:45 <sipa> there
 700 2012-12-20 12:17:51 <Jouke> does the satoshiclient reuse change addresses?
 701 2012-12-20 12:17:58 <sipa> Jouke: no
 702 2012-12-20 12:18:06 <Jouke> ok, thanks.
 703 2012-12-20 12:18:15 <sipa> stealth222: there's some hacky recovery code since 0.7 or 0.7.1, but in general, it will corrupt your wallet
 704 2012-12-20 12:18:35 <sipa> it's just that BDB databases aren't intended to be just single files, but people want them to be
 705 2012-12-20 12:19:15 <stealth222> would LevelDB solve this issue?
 706 2012-12-20 12:19:27 <sipa> yes and no - it uses a single directory per database
 707 2012-12-20 12:19:40 <sipa> there is no single file to be seen, so people couldn't assume it was
 708 2012-12-20 12:19:50 Guest44364 is now known as jine
 709 2012-12-20 12:19:51 <sipa> but leveldb would be overkill for wallets
 710 2012-12-20 12:20:20 jine is now known as Guest47026
 711 2012-12-20 12:20:44 <stealth222> I wouldn't have a problem with one wallet per directory - as long as a wallet is easy to move around a file system
 712 2012-12-20 12:20:58 t7 has joined
 713 2012-12-20 12:21:02 <stealth222> if you need to move an entire directory, so be it
 714 2012-12-20 12:21:11 <sipa> well i started working on a very simple own format for wallets which does just need a single file
 715 2012-12-20 12:21:23 <stealth222> how far did you get?
 716 2012-12-20 12:21:57 <sipa> it worked, but with some pitfalls (the file grows too fast, doesn't get compacted, little recovery code if something goes wrong, ...)
 717 2012-12-20 12:22:27 <sipa> the solution is changing some wallet semantics first, so objects in it need far less rewriting
 718 2012-12-20 12:22:38 <sipa> which isn't hard either, but again not a priority :)
 719 2012-12-20 12:22:55 <stealth222> you keep saying "not a priority" but here I am offering to do this
 720 2012-12-20 12:22:56 <stealth222> lol
 721 2012-12-20 12:23:06 <sipa> why do you think i'm telling you this? :p
 722 2012-12-20 12:23:16 <sipa> my priorities are not necessarily the same as yours
 723 2012-12-20 12:23:58 <stealth222> anyhow, I
 724 2012-12-20 12:24:18 <stealth222> I'm not necessarily interested in reinventing low-level file formats and database systems
 725 2012-12-20 12:24:20 <sipa> stealth222: anyway, just so you're aware of this: if you implement multiwallet now, it will mean multiple wallets in the same BDB environment, and allowing wallet files to be anywhere in the filesystem would be letting people shoot them in the foot
 726 2012-12-20 12:24:20 <stealth222> lol
 727 2012-12-20 12:24:33 <sipa> *themself
 728 2012-12-20 12:25:06 <stealth222> so then the limitation is that all the wallets must be in a single directory?
 729 2012-12-20 12:25:07 att__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 730 2012-12-20 12:25:26 <sipa> not necessarily, but if they're not, people will not know that it has any relation to the env directory
 731 2012-12-20 12:25:48 <sipa> and for example having the wallet file on a USB stick but the env on your hard drive would be a recipe for disaster
 732 2012-12-20 12:26:13 <sipa> unclean shutdown -> move USB stick to other system -> wallet corrupted
 733 2012-12-20 12:26:22 <stealth222> ok, but for practical purposes, it would be less of a headache if we just required the wallets to all reside in the same directory
 734 2012-12-20 12:26:30 <sipa> indeed
 735 2012-12-20 12:26:41 <stealth222> and if we wanted to mount another file system, we'd have to make sure we first do a clean shutdown
 736 2012-12-20 12:26:52 <sipa> so moving away for BDB (for this, and other reasons...) is more important than multiwallet support now
 737 2012-12-20 12:27:15 <sipa> the wallet is the only thing still using BDB in the current code
 738 2012-12-20 12:27:38 <stealth222> so isn't there any opensource solution to this?
 739 2012-12-20 12:27:46 <stealth222> surely there are some decent libraries that take care of this
 740 2012-12-20 12:28:07 <stealth222> you say LevelDB is overkill
 741 2012-12-20 12:28:20 <sipa> sure there are, but they are all overkill, and added dependencies is not nice
 742 2012-12-20 12:28:34 <sipa> we really just need something that maintains a list of key-value pairs :)
 743 2012-12-20 12:28:49 <t7> std::map
 744 2012-12-20 12:28:52 <sipa> even an append-only text file would be better than what we have now :p
 745 2012-12-20 12:28:56 cande has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 746 2012-12-20 12:29:05 <sipa> t7: on disk, with some guarantees that prevent corruption
 747 2012-12-20 12:29:34 <t7> i thought leveldb was a good idea
 748 2012-12-20 12:29:55 <stealth222> if we're already using leveldb for everything else, why not just move the wallet to leveldb?
 749 2012-12-20 12:30:19 <sipa> meh, an entire directory for a wallet :p
 750 2012-12-20 12:30:42 att__ has joined
 751 2012-12-20 12:31:10 <stealth222> we can tar that sucker if needed - lol
 752 2012-12-20 12:31:35 <sipa> haha
 753 2012-12-20 12:31:52 <sipa> anyway, gtg
 754 2012-12-20 12:32:01 <stealth222> ok, take care
 755 2012-12-20 12:33:27 nym has joined
 756 2012-12-20 12:37:11 Guest65084 has quit (Changing host)
 757 2012-12-20 12:37:11 Guest65084 has joined
 758 2012-12-20 12:39:19 npouillard has joined
 759 2012-12-20 12:39:43 Azelphur has quit (Excess Flood)
 760 2012-12-20 12:40:15 Guest65084 is now known as Hasimir
 761 2012-12-20 12:40:28 dvide has quit ()
 762 2012-12-20 12:44:42 Azelphur has joined
 763 2012-12-20 12:51:45 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 764 2012-12-20 12:53:48 Nicksasa has joined
 765 2012-12-20 12:54:33 BlackPrapor has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 766 2012-12-20 12:54:58 BlackPrapor has joined
 767 2012-12-20 13:03:10 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 768 2012-12-20 13:06:31 upb has quit (Quit: Changing server)
 769 2012-12-20 13:06:52 ciphermonk has joined
 770 2012-12-20 13:19:11 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 771 2012-12-20 13:20:50 Guest47026 is now known as jine
 772 2012-12-20 13:20:50 Nicksasa has joined
 773 2012-12-20 13:21:20 jine is now known as Guest3087
 774 2012-12-20 13:26:46 upb has joined
 775 2012-12-20 13:26:46 upb has quit (Changing host)
 776 2012-12-20 13:26:46 upb has joined
 777 2012-12-20 13:28:23 Guest42025 has joined
 778 2012-12-20 13:28:24 darkip3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 779 2012-12-20 13:32:05 torsthaldo has joined
 780 2012-12-20 13:35:10 LargoG has joined
 781 2012-12-20 13:36:01 darkip3 has joined
 782 2012-12-20 13:37:17 Guest42025 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
 783 2012-12-20 13:38:51 ByronJohnson has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
 784 2012-12-20 13:39:46 ByronJohnson has joined
 785 2012-12-20 13:41:03 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
 786 2012-12-20 13:41:52 Nicksasa has joined
 787 2012-12-20 13:42:18 BTCOxygen is now known as 1!~kvirc@gdrpmi.208-53-158-136.dyn.lakeshoretel.com|BTCOxygen
 788 2012-12-20 13:43:36 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
 789 2012-12-20 13:50:59 paraipan has joined
 790 2012-12-20 13:53:37 Aexoden has joined
 791 2012-12-20 13:53:38 TD[gone] has joined
 792 2012-12-20 13:54:14 AlexWaters has joined
 793 2012-12-20 13:58:40 Agath_PD is now known as Agath
 794 2012-12-20 13:58:53 agricocb has joined
 795 2012-12-20 14:03:33 bitcoinbulletin has joined
 796 2012-12-20 14:14:22 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 797 2012-12-20 14:15:58 iddo has joined
 798 2012-12-20 14:18:19 t7 has quit (Read error: No route to host)
 799 2012-12-20 14:18:37 t7 has joined
 800 2012-12-20 14:20:19 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
 801 2012-12-20 14:21:50 Guest3087 is now known as jine
 802 2012-12-20 14:22:20 jine is now known as Guest96148
 803 2012-12-20 14:34:12 Jezzz_ is now known as Jezzz
 804 2012-12-20 14:34:22 Jezzz has quit (Changing host)
 805 2012-12-20 14:34:22 Jezzz has joined
 806 2012-12-20 14:34:52 denisx has joined
 807 2012-12-20 14:35:45 rdymac has joined
 808 2012-12-20 14:36:24 harkon_ has joined
 809 2012-12-20 14:39:30 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 810 2012-12-20 14:39:34 larsig has joined
 811 2012-12-20 14:41:12 rdponticelli has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 812 2012-12-20 14:41:22 Nicksasa has joined
 813 2012-12-20 14:50:47 Nicksasa has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 814 2012-12-20 14:52:05 libcoin has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
 815 2012-12-20 14:52:27 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 816 2012-12-20 14:52:52 Nicksasa has joined
 817 2012-12-20 14:53:24 stealth222 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 818 2012-12-20 14:55:19 jrmithdobbs has joined
 819 2012-12-20 14:58:45 LargoG has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 820 2012-12-20 15:00:15 jrmithdobbs has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 821 2012-12-20 15:00:23 LargoG has joined
 822 2012-12-20 15:01:04 freewil has joined
 823 2012-12-20 15:01:15 jrmithdobbs has joined
 824 2012-12-20 15:04:25 <etotheipi_> stealth, you should really look at Armory :)
 825 2012-12-20 15:05:00 <etotheipi_> gah, he's not here
 826 2012-12-20 15:05:13 Nicksasa has quit (Disconnected by services)
 827 2012-12-20 15:09:58 <BTCOxygen> etotheipi_: I would prefer electrum
 828 2012-12-20 15:10:43 oinooob has joined
 829 2012-12-20 15:11:08 Nicksasa_ has joined
 830 2012-12-20 15:11:45 ciphermonk has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
 831 2012-12-20 15:13:29 <sipa> etotheipi_: regarding the KDF... i prefer the more complex one (i just kinda like the math behind it :p), but if that would be difficult to get accepted by the community because of the complexity...
 832 2012-12-20 15:13:44 <sipa> it's really just a table with a 16 32-bit tuples
 833 2012-12-20 15:17:40 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 834 2012-12-20 15:18:06 nus has joined
 835 2012-12-20 15:18:08 Nicksasa_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 836 2012-12-20 15:18:26 <etotheipi_> sipa: I'm rereading your old email & gist
 837 2012-12-20 15:18:32 <etotheipi_> (from may 19)
 838 2012-12-20 15:19:23 Nicksasa_ has joined
 839 2012-12-20 15:19:36 <oinooob> Usually good engineering is to remove as much as can be removed, but not more, while retaining function.
 840 2012-12-20 15:20:06 <oinooob> (read: remove complexity)
 841 2012-12-20 15:20:49 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 842 2012-12-20 15:22:50 Guest96148 is now known as jine
 843 2012-12-20 15:23:20 jine is now known as Guest18691
 844 2012-12-20 15:27:40 <sipa> etotheipi_: here's the math/results, but little description: https://gist.github.com/2731997
 845 2012-12-20 15:31:31 <sipa> oinooob: it's not really implementation complexity, more like the explanation why particular numbers are better than the trivial ones is more difficulty
 846 2012-12-20 15:32:18 <etotheipi_> sipa: yeah, i actually found that in your May email about it
 847 2012-12-20 15:32:27 <etotheipi_> I haven't fully dug through the math, yet
 848 2012-12-20 15:32:32 <oinooob> sipa: Q: f(n) is supposed to be in the range 0..1/255 (ish))?
 849 2012-12-20 15:33:55 <sipa> oinooob: f(n) is the fraction of seeds that reach a certain iteration for which iteration will stop at that point
 850 2012-12-20 15:34:01 <sipa> so it's a number between 0 and 1
 851 2012-12-20 15:34:28 <sipa> if you do the math for difficulties that start closer to see, you'll see larger numbers than 1/256
 852 2012-12-20 15:34:31 <oinooob> I based my question on the table at the end of that page.
 853 2012-12-20 15:35:30 <sipa> for the first step, i(n)/f(n) should be equal to the difficulty
 854 2012-12-20 15:36:00 <sipa> so if the first difficulty is 4^N, i(n) is 2^N+1 and f(n) is 1/(2^N-1)
 855 2012-12-20 15:36:09 <sipa> so indeed, it starts at 1/255
 856 2012-12-20 15:36:47 <sipa> actually at 257/65536, which is very close to 1/255
 857 2012-12-20 15:36:57 <oinooob> OK. With n=1, fn(n) is around 1/256 (a tad more) as 2^32*fn(n) is listed to be 2^24+2^16.
 858 2012-12-20 15:39:50 <oinooob> Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me 7 out of 32 bits went MIA, and another few bits got diluted along the way?
 859 2012-12-20 15:40:39 <oinooob> (for low n)
 860 2012-12-20 15:40:41 <sipa> ?
 861 2012-12-20 15:41:15 <oinooob> My bad! It's the line for for n=0 I'm referring, not n=1 !
 862 2012-12-20 15:41:21 [\\\] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 863 2012-12-20 15:42:05 <sipa> oinooob: you understand the purpose of the system? because there's a long private email discussion that preceeded it
 864 2012-12-20 15:42:08 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 865 2012-12-20 15:43:06 [\\\] has joined
 866 2012-12-20 15:44:02 <oinooob> sipa: No, sorry to have jumped in like this. I haven't seen any of the previous discussions leading up to this. Perhaps you could just scratch the leading "oi" from my nick. :)
 867 2012-12-20 15:45:51 Nicksasa_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
 868 2012-12-20 15:45:53 <sipa> oinooob: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102349.0
 869 2012-12-20 15:46:51 rdymac has joined
 870 2012-12-20 15:46:58 * oinooob slaps forehead. NOW it sinks in (even without looking at the thread). Thanks for the URL, I'll look at it.
 871 2012-12-20 15:48:42 <etotheipi_> so sipa, let me just clarify the terms in your equation, since i'ts rather abstract
 872 2012-12-20 15:48:57 denisx has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 873 2012-12-20 15:49:20 denisx has joined
 874 2012-12-20 15:50:06 <etotheipi_> N(n) is the difficulty of producing the seed, P(n) is the chance of a particular seed not satisfying f() for n-1 iterations, and thus C(n) is the probability that it satisfies f() after exactly n iterations
 875 2012-12-20 15:50:25 <sipa> hmm, that may be true - i'll need to look closer at it
 876 2012-12-20 15:50:33 EPiSKiNG- has quit ()
 877 2012-12-20 15:51:05 <sipa> N(n) is indeed the intended difficulty at step n
 878 2012-12-20 15:51:24 <sipa> P(n) is the chance of already having bailed out before reaching step n
 879 2012-12-20 15:51:53 rdymac has quit (Quit: Saliendo)
 880 2012-12-20 15:52:02 <etotheipi_> isn't P(n) actually 1 minus that probability
 881 2012-12-20 15:52:10 <sipa> yup!
 882 2012-12-20 15:52:40 <oinooob> It's written as such at least. :)
 883 2012-12-20 15:52:46 <etotheipi_> so C(n) is the probability of satisfying the condition after exactly n steps
 884 2012-12-20 15:53:25 <sipa> indeed
 885 2012-12-20 15:53:43 rdymac has joined
 886 2012-12-20 15:54:10 <sipa> H(n) is the number of iterations when limiting to n-1 steps
 887 2012-12-20 15:54:32 Evilmax has joined
 888 2012-12-20 15:54:32 Evilmax has quit (Changing host)
 889 2012-12-20 15:54:32 Evilmax has joined
 890 2012-12-20 15:54:39 <sipa> i think
 891 2012-12-20 15:54:47 <sipa> it's been a while since i wrote that
 892 2012-12-20 15:57:12 <etotheipi_> I'm going ot have to come back to this... I can't fathom "wasting" another day on IRC when I need to work on my new wallets (other aspects of it)
 893 2012-12-20 15:57:48 <etotheipi_> sipa: I understand what you're doing there, I just can't follow the math step-by-step yet
 894 2012-12-20 15:57:49 <oinooob> Pfft, admit it, you love the math!
 895 2012-12-20 15:58:03 <etotheipi_> I am, after all, a statistician
 896 2012-12-20 15:58:19 <sipa> etotheipi_: it was really just a braindump at the time, it certainly could use a lot more explanation
 897 2012-12-20 15:58:33 <etotheipi_> sipa: understood...
 898 2012-12-20 16:00:03 <etotheipi_> sipa: did you ever get a chance to look at my "new wallet ideas"?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128119.0
 899 2012-12-20 16:00:41 <etotheipi_> in particular, I'm working on the architecture right now for (2) and trying to predict whether what I'm doing is sane
 900 2012-12-20 16:00:51 <sipa> etotheipi_: i saw the thread but kinda decided not to look deeper... i already have way too much i want to work on
 901 2012-12-20 16:00:58 <etotheipi_> sipa: haha, okay
 902 2012-12-20 16:01:14 <etotheipi_> I just feedback on the "lightly encrypted" comments&P2SH file
 903 2012-12-20 16:01:33 <etotheipi_> it sounds a little crazy, but I think it's justified and not too difficult
 904 2012-12-20 16:03:19 <sipa> etotheipi_: it's easy to verify empirically the numbers in that table are approximately correct... just run a simulation and measure the average number of iterations :)
 905 2012-12-20 16:04:42 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: why not just use the private key material to encrypt the metadata. If you want to give e.g. a watch wallet access to it, you pass the private data through a one way function first, so then you're able to give out copies of the metadata.
 906 2012-12-20 16:05:03 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 907 2012-12-20 16:05:08 <gmaxwell> and then you're not automatically getting access to it if you don't want it.
 908 2012-12-20 16:05:27 <oinooob> I think (2) is the way to got. While me, as a security dude appreciate (1), it's simeply not feasible for wider distribution/usage (as I think you realized).
 909 2012-12-20 16:06:09 <etotheipi_> oinooob: I think (1) is perfectly feasible
 910 2012-12-20 16:07:32 <oinooob> etotheipi_: Please elaborate, because I see it the completely other way (imagining a user in the future using his wallet on his phone, with no live backup/synch to "safe" storage).
 911 2012-12-20 16:07:44 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: the pairing model sounds fine to me, but why not fully generalize it to N-of-M way.. just allow people to provide up to N-m parters and then set the quarum level.
 912 2012-12-20 16:07:50 <etotheipi_> who said there's no backup?
 913 2012-12-20 16:08:19 <etotheipi_> you generate wallet A and B, print backups of both, put them in your safe-deposit box, then give your desktop AB' and your phone A'B
 914 2012-12-20 16:08:55 <oinooob> gmaxwell: Hmm, now you're starting to remind me of zfs. :) n-way parity and stuff.
 915 2012-12-20 16:08:57 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: that was essentially my intention...
 916 2012-12-20 16:09:12 <etotheipi_> "(design will also accommodate 2-of-3 and 3-of-3 wallet combos)"
 917 2012-12-20 16:09:25 <etotheipi_> what I meant was "M-of-N"
 918 2012-12-20 16:09:36 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: K. Sure.
 919 2012-12-20 16:09:38 <helo> mining on testnet, i keep getting excited, and then disappointed when i see the mining rewards
 920 2012-12-20 16:10:16 <gmaxwell> "I'm going to solve a block!!!" "oh... I only got tnbtc. :("
 921 2012-12-20 16:10:24 <oinooob> etotheipi_: OK, now I also can join the page and agree (1) sounds more sane compared to how I originally read it.
 922 2012-12-20 16:10:41 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: still better than TBTC
 923 2012-12-20 16:11:20 <oinooob> or TBC... (har, har)
 924 2012-12-20 16:11:51 diki has joined
 925 2012-12-20 16:11:52 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: so— on (2)  why not  metakey = H(private data||'metakey') then you store that in your wallet file, optionally hand it out to watchers if you want them having metadata access (or not). And if you lose your data, anyone with the private key access can recover it.
 926 2012-12-20 16:11:56 <etotheipi_> oinooob: if the backup aspect wasn't clear, I should amend (1) to make that clear
 927 2012-12-20 16:12:34 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: and I wouldn't call it 'lightly encrypted'— I think that implies weak encryption. Not sure what I'd call it.
 928 2012-12-20 16:12:46 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I don't see the necessity of adding extra keys to the mess
 929 2012-12-20 16:13:07 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: if you have access to the chaincodes of the referenced keys, you can decrypt it
 930 2012-12-20 16:13:16 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: there isn't functionally an extra key.
 931 2012-12-20 16:13:18 <etotheipi_> if you don't have access to the chaincodes... then you don't need it
 932 2012-12-20 16:13:43 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: but what if you have chaincode access and _shouldn't_ have access to the metadata?
 933 2012-12-20 16:13:53 <etotheipi_> (i.e. if you don't have the key&chaincode to decrypt comment for address X, it's because X isn't in your wallet, and thus you don't care what the comment/P2SH is)
 934 2012-12-20 16:13:57 d4de_ has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
 935 2012-12-20 16:14:18 <gmaxwell> e.g. I don't want my webserver which generates keys for me to have the keying material needed to read my cloud backups of my metadata.
 936 2012-12-20 16:14:28 <oinooob> etotheipi_: What probably threw me off-track was the missing m-n early in the text, and the mention of "script" that (to me) implies the ability to throw the software way off track (read: making it mathematically impossible to prove).
 937 2012-12-20 16:15:26 <oinooob> (replace m-n with A, A' and so on)
 938 2012-12-20 16:15:57 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: so instead I propose you H(private) for the metadata key but then leave that value unencrypted in your wallet files.  Then someone has the option of not putting data on their webserver that would give an attacker access to their cloud metadata.
 939 2012-12-20 16:16:19 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: but you still have a single piece of data to backup (the stuff to derrive the private keys)
 940 2012-12-20 16:16:27 <etotheipi_> sounds like I need to generalize (1) better... I was focused on the 2-factor-auth use case and wanted to tangentially point out it could easily be expanded for M-of-N, but maybe I should do it the other way arou nd
 941 2012-12-20 16:16:35 da2ce7_d has joined
 942 2012-12-20 16:17:49 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: also, the method of specifying all the watching mates should allow you to put in some kind of description and some kind of URI for instructions on how to gather signatures.
 943 2012-12-20 16:17:53 <oinooob> etotheipi_: For a tangential idea it grew to a decently sized paragraph. :-)
 944 2012-12-20 16:18:20 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I know what you're getting at, but I'm not convinced that what you're saying is a risk... there's still two things that have to be compromised to be able to access that metadata
 945 2012-12-20 16:18:56 LargoG has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
 946 2012-12-20 16:19:14 da2ce7 has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
 947 2012-12-20 16:19:48 <etotheipi_> oinooob: the two-factor auth is something that's been in demand for a long time... so I wanted to highlight that...  the tangential idea that it can be expanded to arbitrary M-of-N is really only captured in the parenthetical comments
 948 2012-12-20 16:20:02 LargoG has joined
 949 2012-12-20 16:20:08 <etotheipi_> instead I should just talk about "linked wallets" and then add a short list of use-cases, highlighting 2-factor auth
 950 2012-12-20 16:20:22 <oinooob> etotheipi_: OK, gotcha.
 951 2012-12-20 16:20:44 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: cloud storage should generally not be considered secure, e.g. in the US it's available without a warrant. Many users will likely use the same cloud accounts to backup their webserver and their 'offline' wallet so it's likely the webserver will already have access.  Plus it costs you nothing if you don't want to support the mode I suggest. Just an extra hash operation and a bit of data in your wallet format, and an extra record in
 952 2012-12-20 16:21:14 <oinooob> As for 2-factor, I can only agree. Especially for those use-cases where an (encrypted) walled is stored at a 3rd party.
 953 2012-12-20 16:22:49 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: As far what you should call the security on it perhaps "wallet private metadata" ?  I'd hesitant to call it encrypted when you keep the key for it unencrypted on disk. :P
 954 2012-12-20 16:23:21 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: that's a fair point
 955 2012-12-20 16:23:29 <etotheipi_> that's why "lightly encrypted" was in quotes, because I wasn't sure how to phrase it
 956 2012-12-20 16:23:51 Guest18691 is now known as jine
 957 2012-12-20 16:24:01 <etotheipi_> I need to rewrite these points ... there was a (3) that I added later in the thread
 958 2012-12-20 16:24:05 <oinooob> "not even ofuscated"? ;-)
 959 2012-12-20 16:24:20 jine is now known as Guest34831
 960 2012-12-20 16:24:27 <etotheipi_> encrypting the public keys, too
 961 2012-12-20 16:24:49 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: meh. use disk encryption.
 962 2012-12-20 16:24:50 <etotheipi_> I'm sure gmaxwell will pick this apart
 963 2012-12-20 16:25:08 <etotheipi_> but what I was thinking was that the user will still have one encryption key
 964 2012-12-20 16:25:23 <etotheipi_> it will just use 2 different KDFs (it doesn't have to be the same, but I know some users want it)
 965 2012-12-20 16:25:25 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: (the reason that privkey encryption is not a duplicate of disk encryption is that it can stay encrypted the 99.999999% of the time you aren't sending funds)
 966 2012-12-20 16:25:32 <gmaxwell> uhg no.
 967 2012-12-20 16:25:50 <gmaxwell> You'd remove all advantage of private key encryption over disk encryption by doing that.
 968 2012-12-20 16:26:16 <etotheipi_> well, you'd make it slightly easier for keyloggers to grab your passphrase
 969 2012-12-20 16:26:25 <etotheipi_> but if they have a keylogger, they'll get it eventually, anyway
 970 2012-12-20 16:26:32 <etotheipi_> unless you really never user it
 971 2012-12-20 16:26:34 <etotheipi_> *use
 972 2012-12-20 16:26:44 <oinooob> If you have a keylogger installed, you're hosed however you view it.
 973 2012-12-20 16:26:50 <gmaxwell> much easier— for example, I have copies of my offline wallet on online machines, I just never decrypt it on them.
 974 2012-12-20 16:27:10 <etotheipi_> hold on...
 975 2012-12-20 16:27:12 etotheipi_ has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
 976 2012-12-20 16:27:29 etotheipi_ has joined
 977 2012-12-20 16:27:40 dvide has joined
 978 2012-12-20 16:27:52 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: if someone is on your machine your privacy is shot in any case. the marginal value of encrypting the public parts is pretty low, and negative if it makes you type your private-controlling key often.
 979 2012-12-20 16:28:15 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: it would only be typed once, when the app is started, but I know what you're saying
 980 2012-12-20 16:28:33 <etotheipi_> the point is that the data stays on disk encrypted, only decrypted in RAM... I'm not sure the disk encryption does the same thing
 981 2012-12-20 16:28:40 <gmaxwell> I dunno about you, but I go weeks without spending bitcoin, but seldom go days without lookin at my balances. ::shrugs::
 982 2012-12-20 16:28:47 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: thats what disk encryption does too.
 983 2012-12-20 16:29:01 PhantomSpark has quit (2!~kvirc@pool-71-190-231-20.nycmny.fios.verizon.net|Read error: Connection reset by peer)
 984 2012-12-20 16:29:18 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: tell me if I'm wrong... during boot I put in my passphrase for my encrypted volume
 985 2012-12-20 16:29:30 <etotheipi_> then *any* process can leverage the unlocked volume and read it
 986 2012-12-20 16:29:43 <etotheipi_> sure, if the laptop was off to start, it's the same
 987 2012-12-20 16:29:49 t7 has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.89-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.9.0.17/2009122204])
 988 2012-12-20 16:29:55 <etotheipi_> but if it's already on and unlocked, disk access is available to all processes
 989 2012-12-20 16:30:02 <etotheipi_> is that correct?
 990 2012-12-20 16:30:07 <gmaxwell> (and also closes some the zillion other channels your system leaks data, e.g. bitcoin's logs. provides some robustness to data manipuation)
 991 2012-12-20 16:30:25 <oinooob> etotheipi_: Yes, that is correct.
 992 2012-12-20 16:30:28 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: sure. Then again, your process memory is available to all processes as well.
 993 2012-12-20 16:30:35 BTCOxygen has quit (Changing host)
 994 2012-12-20 16:30:35 BTCOxygen has joined
 995 2012-12-20 16:30:36 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: is it?
 996 2012-12-20 16:31:01 <etotheipi_> how easy is it to pull data out of another process's RAM?
 997 2012-12-20 16:31:07 <etotheipi_> I thought that was rather involved and required root
 998 2012-12-20 16:31:10 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: Yes. without any bugs to any process run by the same user, and in practice with bugs to any process on the whole system because everything is stuffed with local root exploits.
 999 2012-12-20 16:31:15 harkon has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1000 2012-12-20 16:31:17 <oinooob> Any process with enough privileges can e.g. ReadProcessMemory on Windows, or kmem, and so on.
1001 2012-12-20 16:31:23 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: hah. no.
1002 2012-12-20 16:31:34 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: otherwise debuggers would be rather annoying!
1003 2012-12-20 16:31:44 <sipa> one just uses /dev/exynos-mem
1004 2012-12-20 16:31:58 <oinooob> etotheipi_: If you start 2 processes, your process B can read memory from process A.
1005 2012-12-20 16:32:30 <oinooob> (generally, at least)
1006 2012-12-20 16:32:33 <gmaxwell> in linux it's possible to lock this down— even within a user, but no one does because it breaks lots of stuff... and even if they did it's likely to be very porous.
1007 2012-12-20 16:33:14 <etotheipi_> okay, I am mistaken then
1008 2012-12-20 16:33:37 harkon has joined
1009 2012-12-20 16:33:46 <etotheipi_> but it still seems like an incremental increase in security
1010 2012-12-20 16:34:01 <etotheipi_> and I still consider it, because it's not that much extra effort to do this
1011 2012-12-20 16:34:26 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: if it were true it would make what you're suggesting more attractive... but if people only send a fraction of the times they start it still seems clearly negative to me. Also make things like this more effective by far:
1012 2012-12-20 16:34:41 <etotheipi_> first of all, the attacker has to be more advanced to dig into the processes memory and find the key
1013 2012-12-20 16:35:01 <etotheipi_> whereas any "crawler" that makes it onto your system will just go to your .armory directory and grab your unencrypted file
1014 2012-12-20 16:35:07 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I get on your system. You use armory. The wallet is encrypted.  I kill your armory process and start a keylogger. 100% chance of success even if six hours later you figure out you're hacked and kick me out.
1015 2012-12-20 16:35:45 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: so that's an argument for *not allowing* the outer encryption passphrase to be the same as the inner passphrase
1016 2012-12-20 16:36:00 <etotheipi_> and I agree
1017 2012-12-20 16:36:27 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: oh, well that I could agree with except for the fact that joe user isn't going to get the subtly of this and are going to make them stupidpassword and stupidpassword1
1018 2012-12-20 16:36:50 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: if you do this, make sure you make it so that the _inner_ password is sufficient to recover the wallet, or otherwise you'll increase the risk of data loss.
1019 2012-12-20 16:37:10 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: agreed... I've never trusted users in this way
1020 2012-12-20 16:37:11 <gmaxwell> (you can do this by encrypting master key with the inner password too and storing that)
1021 2012-12-20 16:37:34 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: so do you have a recommendation to protect the watching-only wallet?  or is it just "use disk encryption"?
1022 2012-12-20 16:38:00 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: the real benefit of what you're describing is this:  bozo user copies his wallet to his website and is then sad his pubkeys are all public.
1023 2012-12-20 16:38:18 <gmaxwell> and disk encryption doesn't save that case.
1024 2012-12-20 16:39:02 <oinooob> Call me old-school, but I still think any user having let a keylogger onto his or her system is, as some in security say, "hosed". :-)
1025 2012-12-20 16:39:09 <gmaxwell> I do think "use disk encryption" is the starting point though.  If you care about security and you're not using that— give up.  There are so many ways your system leaks private data to the local disk....
1026 2012-12-20 16:39:15 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: the use case is:  I manage my $1million in BTC using a watching-only wallet on my primary laptop, but when that laptop gets stolen while in hibernate, the theif now knows that I own $1million and he has all my personal info
1027 2012-12-20 16:39:37 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: armory was running when you went into hybernate in any case.
1028 2012-12-20 16:39:47 <oinooob> I think disk-encryption to protect your wallet is absurd.
1029 2012-12-20 16:39:49 <gmaxwell> well I assume you mean suspend.
1030 2012-12-20 16:39:51 t7 has joined
1031 2012-12-20 16:40:16 <gmaxwell> (hybernate would have required the disk encryption password to come back up again)
1032 2012-12-20 16:40:23 <gmaxwell> (normally)
1033 2012-12-20 16:40:23 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: okay, fair enough
1034 2012-12-20 16:40:45 <etotheipi_> but the point is that you have to have a *dramatically more advanced* attacker to figure out how to pull that data out of RAM, compared to just copying a file
1035 2012-12-20 16:41:43 <etotheipi_> additionally, it protects you if Arrmory isn't running at all
1036 2012-12-20 16:41:47 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: no— if it's running and you're the evil maid you just see it on the screen. If you're some crawller, it's all just prefab code— if it was profiltable at all to do this, then it will happen. software already had to be specalized to know it should bother copying wallets in the first place.
1037 2012-12-20 16:42:20 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yea, but it's not free protection: slightly increased risk of data loss, probably greatly increased risk of private key exposure. (when the user uses related keys for both)
1038 2012-12-20 16:42:23 <etotheipi_> okay, maybe I overestimate the difficulty of doing this, because I've never done it myself
1039 2012-12-20 16:42:53 <gmaxwell> gdb -p 1234  p global_thing->cryptokey
1040 2012-12-20 16:43:33 <gmaxwell> actually writing code to do it isn't that hard either, you attach the memory and just do a search for some common pattern in the struct that stores it.
1041 2012-12-20 16:43:49 <oinooob> "If it wasn't difficult, everyone would do it!"
1042 2012-12-20 16:44:27 <gmaxwell> it could be as simple as 5 lines of code, assuming there happened to be something nice and matchable a fixed offset from the key.
1043 2012-12-20 16:44:29 <etotheipi_> well there's still a gap I want to fill
1044 2012-12-20 16:44:46 <etotheipi_> which is... disk encryption is still pretty advanced for users
1045 2012-12-20 16:45:16 <oinooob> Agreed, and disk-encryption is slowing systems down.
1046 2012-12-20 16:45:18 <etotheipi_> the other reason I wanted to do this is so that it is EASY for users who don't need/want to encrypt their whole disk
1047 2012-12-20 16:45:30 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: you could do better with your time by helping out with that, I expect. It's pretty important generally for people who care about privacy. In modern linux distros its just a checkbox, no biggie.
1048 2012-12-20 16:45:44 <gmaxwell> oinooob: it makes pratically no difference in linux.
1049 2012-12-20 16:45:48 <oinooob> etotheipi_: I think you are on the right track. Do NOT assume disk encryption.
1050 2012-12-20 16:45:52 toffoo has joined
1051 2012-12-20 16:46:11 TwilightSparklee has joined
1052 2012-12-20 16:46:24 <etotheipi_> I mean, I could say "if you want to protect this privacy-snafu data, encrypt your disk using one of the following tools..."
1053 2012-12-20 16:46:26 <etotheipi_> but I don' tlike that
1054 2012-12-20 16:46:31 <etotheipi_> it's not a bad recommendation
1055 2012-12-20 16:46:36 <oinooob> gmaxwell: I disagree. I'd say disk encryption is still a rather fringe area for personal use.
1056 2012-12-20 16:46:39 <etotheipi_> but I don't think users will go through the effort
1057 2012-12-20 16:46:47 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: but — well you need to— because if they don't then the privacy snafu is still there and they have a false sense of security.
1058 2012-12-20 16:47:00 <gmaxwell> oinooob: you disagree with what?
1059 2012-12-20 16:47:20 <etotheipi_> haha, maybe make the outer encryption a 4-digit PIN number with a 10 sec KDF :)
1060 2012-12-20 16:47:23 <BTCOxygen> Which encryption tool is best to encrypt a bitcoin wallet
1061 2012-12-20 16:47:27 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: hm!.
1062 2012-12-20 16:47:56 <etotheipi_> though, the ywould then probably change their inner encryption password after the fact, to be the 4digit PIN + 2 digits
1063 2012-12-20 16:48:45 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: well you can still check the similarity... but they'll make ther outer 1234 then make the inner qwer ::sigh::
1064 2012-12-20 16:48:56 <oinooob> gmaxwell: I disagree with your suggestion it's "easy". I agree with my assertion it's a rather fringe are still. I state it's impossible to use if you need high-speed disk access (this disqualifies most laptops, so perhaps we're talking about different scenarios).
1065 2012-12-20 16:49:02 <BTCOxygen> Which encryption tool is best to encrypt a bitcoin wallet?, And is it safe to upload wallet.dat file to services like Dropbox wothout encrypting it?
1066 2012-12-20 16:49:22 <etotheipi_> oinooob: I'm not sure that it's really a speed drag
1067 2012-12-20 16:49:28 <oinooob> s/are still/area still/
1068 2012-12-20 16:49:51 <etotheipi_> if it's encrypted with an AES256 key, I'm pretty sure that AES operates much faster on CPUs than the I/O speed of the disk
1069 2012-12-20 16:50:01 <gmaxwell> oinooob: You're factually incorrect. It is a checkbox during install for modern linux distros (which was what I limited the easy to) and on current cpus AES is much faster than SATA and there is no latency impact.
1070 2012-12-20 16:50:02 <etotheipi_> and with very low resources
1071 2012-12-20 16:50:08 TwilightSparklee has quit (Client Quit)
1072 2012-12-20 16:50:28 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: but so few users are linux users
1073 2012-12-20 16:50:39 <etotheipi_> I agree with you that it *can* be easy, but it rarely is
1074 2012-12-20 16:50:49 <gmaxwell> now, you run truecrypt that is another matter, alas. But thats because the software is lame, it's not a problem with crypto itself.
1075 2012-12-20 16:51:14 <BTCOxygen> etotheipi_: Yeah, most users use windows
1076 2012-12-20 16:51:20 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: yea, windows is the issue there— I agree.  But it doesn't change the fact that encrypting your armory public data does almost nothing to deal with the privacy snafu on your disk.
1077 2012-12-20 16:51:22 <etotheipi_> BTCOxygen: your Bitcoin wallet already has encryption on the private keys (if you enable it)
1078 2012-12-20 16:51:26 <oinooob> If you have an Intel CPU with AES in it, it's quite possible it's fast.  Faster than I/O? Dream on! I can easily read half a GB/s sustained from an SSD. Try that with AES enabled. :-)
1079 2012-12-20 16:52:14 <gmaxwell> oinooob: my deskop does 10Gbit/sec of AES per core. It's simply much faster than sata3.
1080 2012-12-20 16:52:16 <etotheipi_> BTCOxygen: but I wouldn't go backing it up on wholly insecure channels (which we must assume dropbox is)
1081 2012-12-20 16:52:42 <etotheipi_> BTCOxygen: but actually, it's a matter of paranoia and how much you hold
1082 2012-12-20 16:52:43 * gavinandresen wonders if he should mention how approximately nobody will be using traditional PCs in 5 or 10 years
1083 2012-12-20 16:52:44 <gmaxwell> oinooob: and I've actually benchmarked this.
1084 2012-12-20 16:52:48 <oinooob> gmaxwell: Shitting me? 10Gbps???
1085 2012-12-20 16:53:11 <gmaxwell> oinooob: per-core. go go aesni.
1086 2012-12-20 16:53:15 <etotheipi_> oinooob: what gmaxwell just said doesn't surprise me... AES256 is ridiculously fast
1087 2012-12-20 16:53:55 <sipa> gmaxwell: but that is *with* hw instructions for AES
1088 2012-12-20 16:53:55 <oinooob> I know it was designed to be fast, like 24 clocks/byte on IA32 or somthing like that.
1089 2012-12-20 16:54:07 <etotheipi_> actually, 10Gbps is kind of high
1090 2012-12-20 16:54:20 <sipa> gmaxwell: oinoob wad referring to the case where you don't havr those
1091 2012-12-20 16:54:20 <gmaxwell> and besides, even if was a slowdown ... it would slows you down by a couple months of moore's law growth. whoptie do. If you care about privacy enough that you'd consider typing in a passphrase every time you start some program, it would be be a good tradeoff.
1092 2012-12-20 16:54:38 <gmaxwell> sipa: "If you have an Intel CPU with AES in it, it's quite possible it's fast.  Faster than I/O? Dream on!" Hm?
1093 2012-12-20 16:54:41 <etotheipi_> that's faster than most clocks.... but it wouldn't surprise me if AES is still as fast as the max SATA3 IO
1094 2012-12-20 16:54:54 <sipa> oh, misread
1095 2012-12-20 16:55:41 <etotheipi_> but I think this is still a relevant feature to address... I think there should be an option for users who don't want to use full-disk/volume encryption
1096 2012-12-20 16:56:21 fuzion24 has joined
1097 2012-12-20 16:56:22 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I still think your concern should instead just be copies of the file (E.g. backups)
1098 2012-12-20 16:56:53 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: but still I dunno how to weigh that aganst them making their private key key less secure. :(
1099 2012-12-20 16:56:54 <oinooob> etotheipi_: I'm with you 100%. The ones using disk encryption adds another layer to their _data_, but it shouldn't affect BC at all (IMHO).
1100 2012-12-20 16:57:11 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I think that it's too much to ask to say "wnat to protect this data?  go figure out disk encryption"
1101 2012-12-20 16:57:25 <oinooob> Agreed.
1102 2012-12-20 16:57:28 copumpkin has joined
1103 2012-12-20 16:57:32 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: I think you're incorrect. You're actually _not_ protecting that data without it.
1104 2012-12-20 16:57:43 <etotheipi_> and that it's very important to some users to protect that data, at least between boots
1105 2012-12-20 16:58:05 <etotheipi_> but I do agree, I don't want to degrade the security of the private key encryption
1106 2012-12-20 16:58:08 TwilightSparklee has joined
1107 2012-12-20 16:58:11 <etotheipi_> so is there a solution?
1108 2012-12-20 16:58:19 <gmaxwell> You're creating a false sense of security. For example, all the users txn IDs will end up in the bitcoin logs for example. All their browsing history in their caches which will often give away ther spending behavior, etc.
1109 2012-12-20 16:58:19 <oinooob> There is "protect" and there is "protect".
1110 2012-12-20 16:58:53 d4de has joined
1111 2012-12-20 16:58:53 d4de has quit (Changing host)
1112 2012-12-20 16:58:53 d4de has joined
1113 2012-12-20 16:59:12 <etotheipi_> at least in Armory, I don't think any of that is logged unless you use the --debug flag
1114 2012-12-20 16:59:22 <etotheipi_> but it's good point that should be confirmed
1115 2012-12-20 16:59:42 <etotheipi_> if you're going to go to the effort to protect the public key, I should make sure the log doesn't record the same information
1116 2012-12-20 17:00:03 <etotheipi_> bitcoin-qt logging is something out of my control though
1117 2012-12-20 17:00:46 <ThomasV> etotheipi_: does armory implement bip 32?
1118 2012-12-20 17:00:54 <etotheipi_> ThomasV: it will, soon
1119 2012-12-20 17:01:14 <etotheipi_> ThomasV: I have all the crypto implemented... but I'm working on the new wallet files that will house the BIP 32 data
1120 2012-12-20 17:01:38 <ThomasV> etotheipi_: is bip 32 final?
1121 2012-12-20 17:01:48 <sipa> i have code for generating test vectors ready; i'll soon publish some
1122 2012-12-20 17:01:54 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: how about this—  if the system has a TPM encrypt the public wallet data with F(private data)=x, and store x in the TPM.  If you stay on the same system, its autodecrypted. If you change systems you must provide the private key to unlock the public data?
1123 2012-12-20 17:02:01 <etotheipi_> and by "working on it" I mean, fending off gmaxwell who continues to point out security concerns with every thing I propose :)
1124 2012-12-20 17:02:11 <sipa> i suppose i should first request input from the dev mailing list ... and from a cryptographer
1125 2012-12-20 17:02:17 <etotheipi_> sipa: please do... I'm ready to run some crypto unit-tests on that code
1126 2012-12-20 17:02:23 <sipa> speaking of which, i should just ask Hal...
1127 2012-12-20 17:02:41 <gmaxwell> good call on hal, at least he'll understand the problem's were trying to solve.
1128 2012-12-20 17:03:01 <gmaxwell> One problem with bip32 as it stands is that its a little opaque to someone who doesn't really know about how bitcoin uses keys.
1129 2012-12-20 17:03:03 <sipa> yes, and he seems interested in keeping up with bitcoin as well
1130 2012-12-20 17:03:09 <gmaxwell> (I mean the motivation is opaque)
1131 2012-12-20 17:03:28 <ThomasV> etotheipi_: I want to use bip 32 in electrum, but I don't want to do it before it is final, because it would double the pain for users if we need to change again
1132 2012-12-20 17:03:32 <fuzion24> So, I am working on modifying bitcoinj to store the full block chain, I was curious if anyone here has worked on the satoshi client as to how exactly they implemented it
1133 2012-12-20 17:03:33 <sipa> it should carry notices about revealing parent pubkeys
1134 2012-12-20 17:03:46 <gmaxwell> So I expect that talking to someone like DJB may first waste an hour of "just use a random value for your private keys!!" :P
1135 2012-12-20 17:04:07 <etotheipi_> ThomasV: I'm not going to let users switch to the new wallets using BIP 32 until it's finalized... but there's a lot of work to do, so I can iron that out before it's released
1136 2012-12-20 17:04:30 <sipa> if something changes, it's probably just details
1137 2012-12-20 17:04:31 <ThomasV> a lot of work?
1138 2012-12-20 17:04:53 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: he's redesigning his wallets far beyond just bip32.
1139 2012-12-20 17:05:05 <etotheipi_> ThomasV: the crypto implementation is not terribly difficult, but I have a lot of work to do on the new wallet files themselves, some features of which depend on BIP 32
1140 2012-12-20 17:05:58 <etotheipi_> for instance, accommodating "linked" wallets, so that BIP32 wallets can have counterparts on other devices/computers, and all addresses generated will be multi-sig/P2SH addresses
1141 2012-12-20 17:06:15 t7 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1142 2012-12-20 17:06:26 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: In any case, yea, sorry for bludgoning you so much on the public part encryption to be honest I don't really know. I think you were overestimating the benefits before, and I am probably overestmating the risks. I do at least see value in the cases where people foolishly throw their wallets onto websites for backup and such at least.
1143 2012-12-20 17:06:55 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: trust me, I appreciate your input, even if the risks may be overstated
1144 2012-12-20 17:07:08 <ThomasV> etotheipi_: when you have "linked" wallets, is there data they need to exchange that is not in the blockchain?
1145 2012-12-20 17:07:53 <etotheipi_> ThomasV: yes -- ideally all wallets are created on an offline computer, and distributed to all parties:  computer A get AB'C', B get A'BC' and C gets A'B'C
1146 2012-12-20 17:08:11 <etotheipi_> but I also want to accommodate linking if all the wallets were created separately
1147 2012-12-20 17:08:15 <gmaxwell> the primes there are 'watch only wallets'.
1148 2012-12-20 17:08:26 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1149 2012-12-20 17:08:50 <etotheipi_> so, there's a bit of work to handle all the use cases
1150 2012-12-20 17:09:00 <gmaxwell> The idea is that one computer has  subwallet A and watching-subwallet B.  And the other computer has subwallet B and watching subwallet A.  To sign a transaction you have to pass a partally signed txn between them.
1151 2012-12-20 17:09:10 <gmaxwell> (somehow)
1152 2012-12-20 17:09:12 <ThomasV> but that's not something they need to exchange; a wallet knows which private keys it has
1153 2012-12-20 17:09:35 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: yes, they need to exchange the watching parts.
1154 2012-12-20 17:09:40 <etotheipi_> well, until I get feedback on BIP 10 about how other people want to accommodate this, I'm going to do minimal modifications to BIP 10
1155 2012-12-20 17:09:46 <gmaxwell> So that it knows what public keys its partner has.
1156 2012-12-20 17:10:33 <gmaxwell> and with all sets of public keys you can derrive the p2sh addresses.
1157 2012-12-20 17:11:10 <etotheipi_> actually, there is one thing I still need to resolve... which is sending data between devices... you don't want to plug your phone into your computer to do the transfer, and text messages are too small... email is ideal, but it's probably too complicated to link both devices to email addresses
1158 2012-12-20 17:11:25 <etotheipi_> (this is for the purposes of passing around partially-signed tx)
1159 2012-12-20 17:11:29 Ploo_ is now known as Pucilowski
1160 2012-12-20 17:11:46 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: but they all have all public keys.. do they need to know which private keys each partner does NOT have?
1161 2012-12-20 17:11:52 <etotheipi_> I assume that the computer will always start the transfer:  it will sign half the tx... then somehow pass it to the phone which will add the second signature and then broadcast
1162 2012-12-20 17:11:57 Someguy123 has quit (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net)
1163 2012-12-20 17:12:30 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: each would ~assume~ only he has his own private keys, and that his partner has the private keys matching the partners public chain.
1164 2012-12-20 17:12:39 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
1165 2012-12-20 17:13:04 <gmaxwell> (keeping in mind 2 of 2 is only one case, e.g. I see this being very useful for n of m for organization fund management)
1166 2012-12-20 17:13:18 da2ce7 has joined
1167 2012-12-20 17:13:42 <ThomasV> I mean, each could sign his part of the tx, and pass the partially signed tx around, without worrying about who owns what.. or am I wrong?
1168 2012-12-20 17:14:40 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: you can't generate the address to begin with unless you know all the relevant public keys. You don't necessarily need to know who knows what but its useful to know— e.g. who is the holdout who is offline.
1169 2012-12-20 17:15:20 <etotheipi_> ThomasV: that is correct... your device doesn't care who or what owns the other keys, only that it is 1-of-3 potentially signatures, and it agrees to that transfer
1170 2012-12-20 17:15:38 <ThomasV> gmaxwell: yes, but I understood everyone knows the public keys of everyone
1171 2012-12-20 17:15:41 <etotheipi_> the other devices/parties can decide for themselves whether to add their own signature
1172 2012-12-20 17:15:51 da2ce7_d has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1173 2012-12-20 17:15:56 <gmaxwell> ThomasV: well thats why you have to exchange watching wallet codes.
1174 2012-12-20 17:16:50 <etotheipi_> on that note: I said in my proposal I was sort public keys in the P2SH script based on lexicographic order of wallet IDs... but perhaps it makes sense to sort by individual public key
1175 2012-12-20 17:17:19 <etotheipi_> so each transaction:  the wallet creating the transaction gets all N public keys, and sorts them lexicographically... then adds them to the P2SH in that order
1176 2012-12-20 17:17:25 <gmaxwell> yea, I think sorting by the public key makes more sense.. simply because its more compatible with pulling some keys out of the chains.
1177 2012-12-20 17:23:25 MiningBuddy has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1178 2012-12-20 17:24:49 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: so as I look back at the code, I'm still not entirely sure if there's a reasonable path to getting SOME security on the public-keys in your wallet without sacrifiicing private key security
1179 2012-12-20 17:24:51 Guest34831 is now known as jine
1180 2012-12-20 17:25:21 jine is now known as Guest15294
1181 2012-12-20 17:25:25 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: what did you think of the tpm thought I gave above?
1182 2012-12-20 17:25:47 iddo has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1183 2012-12-20 17:25:48 fuzion24 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1184 2012-12-20 17:26:09 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: I'm not faimilar with how to detect and use TPMs
1185 2012-12-20 17:26:24 <etotheipi_> or who is likely to have it as part of their system
1186 2012-12-20 17:26:26 <gmaxwell> I'm not either. There are libraries.
1187 2012-12-20 17:26:41 <gmaxwell> it's a standard feature on many laptops, I believe they're less common in desktops.
1188 2012-12-20 17:27:30 <etotheipi_> gah... I'm going to defer this by leaving room for an extra encryption layer, but not implement it yet
1189 2012-12-20 17:27:37 <etotheipi_> the absence of this feature should not hold up all the othe rfeatures
1190 2012-12-20 17:28:39 <rieno> how come he's allowed to do his business here when i am not?
1191 2012-12-20 17:29:37 <etotheipi_> someone may come up with a good idea in that time, anyway
1192 2012-12-20 17:30:11 <gmaxwell> I've added looking into TPM for wallet security to my todo.
1193 2012-12-20 17:30:24 <gmaxwell> should get a chance .. sometime in june .. 2017.
1194 2012-12-20 17:30:26 <gmaxwell> :P
1195 2012-12-20 17:30:37 <etotheipi_> :) that's how I feel about a lot of things on my todo list
1196 2012-12-20 17:31:37 Gladamas has joined
1197 2012-12-20 17:36:21 MiningBuddy has joined
1198 2012-12-20 17:38:07 iddo has joined
1199 2012-12-20 17:41:27 diki has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1200 2012-12-20 17:42:32 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1201 2012-12-20 17:45:06 rdymac has joined
1202 2012-12-20 17:45:26 daybyter has joined
1203 2012-12-20 17:45:58 agricocb has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1204 2012-12-20 17:46:26 agricocb has joined
1205 2012-12-20 17:54:39 CodesInChaos has joined
1206 2012-12-20 18:02:45 nonick has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1207 2012-12-20 18:09:17 D34TH has joined
1208 2012-12-20 18:09:17 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1209 2012-12-20 18:09:17 D34TH has joined
1210 2012-12-20 18:09:45 BurtyB has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
1211 2012-12-20 18:11:13 ciscoftw has joined
1212 2012-12-20 18:14:31 phungus has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1213 2012-12-20 18:16:32 phungus has joined
1214 2012-12-20 18:16:36 rdymac has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
1215 2012-12-20 18:19:02 ThomasV has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1216 2012-12-20 18:23:11 BTCOxygen has joined
1217 2012-12-20 18:25:51 Guest15294 is now known as jine
1218 2012-12-20 18:26:21 jine is now known as Guest75454
1219 2012-12-20 18:28:13 zooko has joined
1220 2012-12-20 18:29:41 EasyAt has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1221 2012-12-20 18:34:08 <zooko> Hm, is the weekly meeting not now?
1222 2012-12-20 18:34:15 * zooko reads the email list...
1223 2012-12-20 18:34:48 <gmaxwell> zooko: er. "holidays!"
1224 2012-12-20 18:35:19 <gmaxwell> (more reasonably, no one sent out reminders that it would be held—  right now I think most activity is in pound on ultraprune mode)
1225 2012-12-20 18:36:35 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1226 2012-12-20 18:39:51 <zooko> gmaxwell: ok!
1227 2012-12-20 18:42:55 skeledrew has joined
1228 2012-12-20 18:44:16 BlueMatt has joined
1229 2012-12-20 18:44:16 BlueMatt has quit (Changing host)
1230 2012-12-20 18:44:16 BlueMatt has joined
1231 2012-12-20 18:44:38 denisx has quit (Quit: denisx)
1232 2012-12-20 18:45:27 zooko has quit (Quit: brb)
1233 2012-12-20 18:47:47 zooko has joined
1234 2012-12-20 18:47:54 fuzion24 has joined
1235 2012-12-20 18:48:50 <fuzion24> Is there any documentation about the architecture of the blockchain datastore for the satoshi client?
1236 2012-12-20 18:50:54 <gmaxwell> What do you mean specifically 'blockchain datastore'?
1237 2012-12-20 18:51:22 <rieno> fuzion24: read the wiki, and read about libdb (berkeley DB)
1238 2012-12-20 18:51:26 <rieno> gmaxwell: go and die
1239 2012-12-20 18:51:35 zooko` has joined
1240 2012-12-20 18:52:18 <gmaxwell> Berkley DB is not used to store any of the block data itself.
1241 2012-12-20 18:52:36 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1242 2012-12-20 18:53:04 zooko` is now known as zooko
1243 2012-12-20 18:53:17 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1244 2012-12-20 19:02:10 toffoo has quit ()
1245 2012-12-20 19:06:57 skeledrew has joined
1246 2012-12-20 19:16:48 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1247 2012-12-20 19:21:02 freakazoid has joined
1248 2012-12-20 19:21:19 <ciscoftw> can someone link me to a solid description of what the bitcoin coinbase is... looking for info, regarding insertion into coinbase when block is solved... can this even be done with standard bitcoind client?
1249 2012-12-20 19:21:52 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1250 2012-12-20 19:23:22 skeledrew has joined
1251 2012-12-20 19:23:54 MobiusL has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1252 2012-12-20 19:26:51 Guest75454 is now known as jine
1253 2012-12-20 19:27:21 jine is now known as Guest32860
1254 2012-12-20 19:28:58 t7 has joined
1255 2012-12-20 19:28:59 maaku has joined
1256 2012-12-20 19:32:09 Cusipzzz has joined
1257 2012-12-20 19:33:53 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
1258 2012-12-20 19:34:33 Internet13 has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1259 2012-12-20 19:35:47 Guest42025 has joined
1260 2012-12-20 19:35:48 darkip3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1261 2012-12-20 19:36:10 skeledrew has joined
1262 2012-12-20 19:37:37 Internet13 has joined
1263 2012-12-20 19:39:59 <D34TH> sipa: pulling errors making libleveldb.a on leveldb17 branch
1264 2012-12-20 19:40:32 <D34TH> sipahttp://pastebin.com/0BjC2Eki
1265 2012-12-20 19:41:42 <D34TH> seems like it isnt including port/win/stdint.h
1266 2012-12-20 19:42:52 <gmaxwell> "leveldb17 branch"?
1267 2012-12-20 19:43:09 <gmaxwell> What awful forgotten code are you running? :P
1268 2012-12-20 19:43:45 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
1269 2012-12-20 19:44:03 Someguy1234 has joined
1270 2012-12-20 19:44:22 <gmaxwell> oh, thats the branch with the stock level db 1.7 stuff, ignore me.
1271 2012-12-20 19:45:05 MobiusL has joined
1272 2012-12-20 19:45:44 <sipa> D34TH: patches welcome - i just didn't touch the windows build code at all, as i have no way to test it
1273 2012-12-20 19:47:00 skeledrew has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1274 2012-12-20 19:48:52 skeledrew has joined
1275 2012-12-20 19:50:13 <D34TH> sipa: working on it now
1276 2012-12-20 19:50:34 Someguy1234 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1277 2012-12-20 19:52:38 <D34TH> sipa: i figured out the use of LEVELDB_PLATFORM_WINDOWS
1278 2012-12-20 19:53:22 Guest80961 has joined
1279 2012-12-20 19:54:21 owowo has joined
1280 2012-12-20 19:54:34 Guest80961 is now known as Someguy123
1281 2012-12-20 19:54:46 Someguy123 has quit (Changing host)
1282 2012-12-20 19:54:46 Someguy123 has joined
1283 2012-12-20 19:57:02 zooko has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1284 2012-12-20 19:57:20 <D34TH> sipa: does your build use snappy?
1285 2012-12-20 19:57:26 <D34TH> if not why
1286 2012-12-20 19:57:34 <sipa> it doesn't
1287 2012-12-20 19:57:40 <sipa> i disabled it, because we don't use it
1288 2012-12-20 19:57:47 <sipa> and it's an extra dependency problem
1289 2012-12-20 19:57:58 <sipa> (and we don't use it because it doesn't help)
1290 2012-12-20 19:58:30 <sipa> gmaxwell: do you understand thanke's concerns about tying the chaincode to pubkey and privkey?
1291 2012-12-20 20:00:34 nus has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1292 2012-12-20 20:01:16 nus has joined
1293 2012-12-20 20:01:32 <D34TH> sipa: for the life of me, it seems as if the code is correct but it isn't being accepted (with my small c++ knowledge)
1294 2012-12-20 20:03:07 <D34TH> oh thats what i did wrong
1295 2012-12-20 20:03:10 <D34TH> ok new errors
1296 2012-12-20 20:03:11 <D34TH> :D
1297 2012-12-20 20:03:19 ciscoftw has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1298 2012-12-20 20:03:48 <gmaxwell> sipa: I'm currently missing the context for your question.
1299 2012-12-20 20:04:31 <gmaxwell> sipa: I see it now.
1300 2012-12-20 20:05:41 <sipa> i guess it boils down to "the chain code is more secret than the pubkey"
1301 2012-12-20 20:06:15 <gmaxwell> I guess I don't see anything wrong with that on its face, though " I am also assuming that every node in the key tree represents a separate entity" suggests strongly different goals.
1302 2012-12-20 20:08:13 sgornick has joined
1303 2012-12-20 20:10:25 <D34TH> sipa: seems like i fixed it
1304 2012-12-20 20:10:47 <D34TH> going in for testing
1305 2012-12-20 20:11:23 <sipa> it built?
1306 2012-12-20 20:11:32 <sipa> w00t
1307 2012-12-20 20:12:29 <D34TH> new errors
1308 2012-12-20 20:12:31 jdnavarro has joined
1309 2012-12-20 20:12:31 <D34TH> woo
1310 2012-12-20 20:12:58 <D34TH> http://pastebin.com/htFxVPg9
1311 2012-12-20 20:14:10 <sipa> i can't help you here
1312 2012-12-20 20:15:31 Z0rZ0rZ0r has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1313 2012-12-20 20:19:25 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: there is a context left out of our previous discussion
1314 2012-12-20 20:19:46 <gmaxwell> etotheipi_: considering I hadn't read that thread beyond your first message— I wouldn't be surprised!
1315 2012-12-20 20:19:49 <etotheipi_> which is:  sure there's a potential snafu when you are protecting both private and public keys in your wallet and the user picks a similar passphrase for both
1316 2012-12-20 20:20:08 <etotheipi_> but most people using this won't even have private key data in their wallet
1317 2012-12-20 20:20:28 <etotheipi_> so it's absolutely worth having the "outer" encryption for such wallets...
1318 2012-12-20 20:21:32 <etotheipi_> those who are keeping more BTC and more concerned about the privacy & security, are likely to keep them offline and only use watching-only wallets online
1319 2012-12-20 20:21:54 <gmaxwell> hm. well then why not just have a switch where you can have inner (default but only available when there is private data) and outer which is only available when there isn't private data?
1320 2012-12-20 20:22:08 <etotheipi_> gmaxwell: that's what I was thinking
1321 2012-12-20 20:22:12 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1322 2012-12-20 20:22:16 <etotheipi_> it's a strange dichotomy though
1323 2012-12-20 20:22:28 <etotheipi_> as one isn't strictly more permissive than the other
1324 2012-12-20 20:22:30 <gmaxwell> Yea, that removes my concerns I think. And if someone wants 'security for both' they should really have the private data offline.
1325 2012-12-20 20:22:55 <phantomcircuit> etotheipi_, encryption for the public keys?
1326 2012-12-20 20:23:11 <phantomcircuit> why
1327 2012-12-20 20:23:11 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: public keys, metadata, etc.
1328 2012-12-20 20:23:28 <etotheipi_> phantomcircuit: yes... I had a user contact me that he was concerned if he loses his laptop, someone won't get his private keys, but they will have his identity and know he has $100k+ sitting in cold storage at his house
1329 2012-12-20 20:23:40 <sipa> etotheipi_: who? :p
1330 2012-12-20 20:23:48 <gmaxwell> hahah
1331 2012-12-20 20:23:49 <etotheipi_> lol
1332 2012-12-20 20:24:05 <phantomcircuit> etotheipi_, tell him to encrypt his laptop...
1333 2012-12-20 20:24:07 <gmaxwell> "Hm interesting problem it would help to know where you live .. exactly. while I work on coding a er. fix"
1334 2012-12-20 20:24:17 <etotheipi_> I don't know if it was $100k, but it was enough that he was *really* concerned
1335 2012-12-20 20:24:21 maaku has joined
1336 2012-12-20 20:24:28 <etotheipi_> and I think it's a useful feature to have
1337 2012-12-20 20:24:52 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: and thats the right answer but: (1) doesn't help when he copies the file to a cloud backup place, (2) apparently this is hard to do in windows.
1338 2012-12-20 20:25:28 <phantomcircuit> if he has enough that he's worried like that he should buy a separate laptop that is only for the wallet....
1339 2012-12-20 20:25:45 <etotheipi_> phantomcircuit: theirs lots of graylevels...
1340 2012-12-20 20:25:57 <phantomcircuit> i have a netbook which is only used for plaintext wallets
1341 2012-12-20 20:26:02 <etotheipi_> it's easy to say they *should* do something... but a lot of users don't want to do that
1342 2012-12-20 20:26:04 <phantomcircuit> i removed the hdd
1343 2012-12-20 20:26:06 <etotheipi_> or they don't know how
1344 2012-12-20 20:26:08 <etotheipi_> or it's complicated
1345 2012-12-20 20:26:31 <etotheipi_> and I've determined it's my job, that if they run Armory, they have useful features that let them compromise on their goals
1346 2012-12-20 20:26:51 <etotheipi_> haha, I almost said "compromise their goals"
1347 2012-12-20 20:27:01 <phantomcircuit> unless you're locking memory you're wasting time
1348 2012-12-20 20:27:08 <phantomcircuit> the page file will contain the info
1349 2012-12-20 20:27:09 daybyter has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
1350 2012-12-20 20:27:11 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: generally its our responsibility in making software to make stuff which is not fragile against user carelessness or ignorance when we can— as we know that users are careless and ignorant (even ourselves…)
1351 2012-12-20 20:27:44 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, generally speaking i would agree but in this case i think it could give users a false sense of security
1352 2012-12-20 20:27:52 Guest32860 is now known as jine
1353 2012-12-20 20:27:56 <phantomcircuit> which is in many ways worse than not having the feature at all
1354 2012-12-20 20:28:22 jine is now known as Guest78994
1355 2012-12-20 20:28:25 <etotheipi_> phantomcircuit: it's not a 100% layer of protection... nothing is
1356 2012-12-20 20:29:00 <etotheipi_> but it's not terribly difficult to implement, and definitely raises the bar for what an attacker has to do to extract the information
1357 2012-12-20 20:29:04 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: you're repeating my earlier arguments. :P
1358 2012-12-20 20:29:22 <etotheipi_> you're right, users should be aware that it's not 100%
1359 2012-12-20 20:30:54 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: my biggest concern was that users would make their privkey password and access password the same and then be more likely to lose the former due to typing the latter all the time.
1360 2012-12-20 20:31:16 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: but then I also pointed out that if your disk isn't encrypted you're leaking info all over the place...
1361 2012-12-20 20:32:10 <phantomcircuit> yup same worries
1362 2012-12-20 20:33:33 <gmaxwell> I suggested perhaps locking access to the public data to the system's TPM.  (and if you lose the hardware, you'd need the private key to recover the metadata instead) But that seems like a bit more of a science project.
1363 2012-12-20 20:35:07 <phantomcircuit> well and the tpm is usually fairly slow/high latency
1364 2012-12-20 20:35:36 <phantomcircuit> although that's probably gotten better recently
1365 2012-12-20 20:35:51 Z0rZ0rZ0r has joined
1366 2012-12-20 20:36:17 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: well I suppose you'd decrypt and leave it in memory. So you'd only access it at startup. (you're hosed no matter what if the attacker is actively scraping your memory)
1367 2012-12-20 20:36:56 <gmaxwell> but the point there being that if you lose control of the file the privacy is protected... while also not making frequently type a private key.
1368 2012-12-20 20:37:00 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, if there's even relatively minor pressure on memory windows will swap out
1369 2012-12-20 20:37:17 <phantomcircuit> without locked memory you'd find your info all over the disk
1370 2012-12-20 20:37:22 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: uh. does mlock not work in windows?!@#!
1371 2012-12-20 20:37:25 <phantomcircuit> although it is a bitch to pull things from page file
1372 2012-12-20 20:37:40 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, i suspect you'd have to mlock a lot of memory to make ti work reliably
1373 2012-12-20 20:37:54 <gmaxwell> but right, since etotheipi_ is talking about more than private keys, you'd have to lock the entire program.
1374 2012-12-20 20:38:12 <gmaxwell> which would sure be a lot easier if armory were just a pure wallet. :P
1375 2012-12-20 20:38:15 <phantomcircuit> yeah which gets problematic when you're talking a 2+GB memory program
1376 2012-12-20 20:43:30 TwilightSparklee has joined
1377 2012-12-20 20:44:47 ThomasV has joined
1378 2012-12-20 20:46:08 olp has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
1379 2012-12-20 20:49:52 sgornick has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
1380 2012-12-20 20:50:59 olp has joined
1381 2012-12-20 20:51:30 <etotheipi_> speaking of pulling encryption keys out of RAM, this just showed up on slashdot:  http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/20/this-299-tool-is-reportedly-capable-of-cracking-bitlocker-pgp-and-truecrypt-disks-in-real-time/
1382 2012-12-20 20:51:55 <phantomcircuit> etotheipi_, open source tools to do that have existed forever
1383 2012-12-20 20:53:42 <gmaxwell> it's especially fun with AES because the keyschedule is such that they're easily identifyable in memory and you can even recover an aes key from the schedule with a bunch of bit errors.
1384 2012-12-20 20:54:52 d4de has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1385 2012-12-20 20:55:07 TwilightSparklee has quit (Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi)
1386 2012-12-20 20:57:21 oinooob has left ()
1387 2012-12-20 20:57:27 <sipa> so, define a crypto standard that uses scrypt in its key schedule :)
1388 2012-12-20 20:58:14 <sipa> or even just any kdf
1389 2012-12-20 20:58:29 <sipa> doesn't need to be hard
1390 2012-12-20 21:00:35 <helo> "capable of cracking bitlocker and truecrypt"
1391 2012-12-20 21:00:45 <MC1984> hiberfiel i understand
1392 2012-12-20 21:00:53 <MC1984> but how do you get a memory dump
1393 2012-12-20 21:02:04 sgornick has joined
1394 2012-12-20 21:02:49 <MC1984> oh theres the firewire thing
1395 2012-12-20 21:03:08 <MC1984> why on earht hasnt that old exploit been fixed
1396 2012-12-20 21:03:58 <sipa> ?
1397 2012-12-20 21:04:39 <MC1984> firewire has unrestricted memory access to any FW device apparently
1398 2012-12-20 21:04:48 <MC1984> direct access thru the FW controller
1399 2012-12-20 21:05:16 <gmaxwell> MC1984: can't fix it without breaking firewire stuff.
1400 2012-12-20 21:05:46 <MC1984> yeah i mean why didnt they fix it in all new FW controllers shipped since it was found
1401 2012-12-20 21:06:00 <MC1984> without breaking all the old stuff, if thats even possible
1402 2012-12-20 21:06:37 <gmaxwell> I don't think it's possible to fix in the controllers without making some devices not work.
1403 2012-12-20 21:07:12 <MC1984> oh
1404 2012-12-20 21:07:37 <sipa> wait, what?
1405 2012-12-20 21:08:17 <MC1984> sipa any firewire device plugged in has full direct access to all memory space on the host
1406 2012-12-20 21:08:30 <MC1984> directly through the hosts FW controller
1407 2012-12-20 21:08:59 <sipa> what? that's insane?
1408 2012-12-20 21:09:09 <MC1984> yea its a hole
1409 2012-12-20 21:09:11 <sipa> why do people advocate that technology?
1410 2012-12-20 21:09:21 <sipa> this is ridiculous
1411 2012-12-20 21:09:23 <MC1984> cus its fast
1412 2012-12-20 21:09:36 <MC1984> i had a firewire external HDD it was great
1413 2012-12-20 21:10:59 <MC1984> also fun fact, the firewire port is designed after the system link port on the original gameboy
1414 2012-12-20 21:11:18 <MC1984> because they thought if that was good enough for kids to fuck around with then its pretty much indestructable
1415 2012-12-20 21:11:59 <gmaxwell> sipa: you can't do memory protection dma from the bus— it's on the wrong side of the mmu. and firewire supports DMA ... sooooo. And it's at least non-trivial for the controller to limit it, since it only has a physical view of the memory. Or at least this is my fuzzy recollection.
1416 2012-12-20 21:13:33 <sipa> gmaxwell: right, but the standard could have been that firewire controllers implement a range restrixtion as demanded by their driver
1417 2012-12-20 21:14:04 <sipa> so even though the firewire controller would have full DMA access, not every device plugged into it would
1418 2012-12-20 21:14:21 <phantomcircuit> primary problem with firewire
1419 2012-12-20 21:14:22 <phantomcircuit> apple
1420 2012-12-20 21:14:23 <phantomcircuit> lolol
1421 2012-12-20 21:18:23 zooko has joined
1422 2012-12-20 21:19:00 <MC1984> apple has dumped firewire for the thunderbolt thingy now anyway
1423 2012-12-20 21:19:18 <MC1984> i think they only own the firewire trademark anyway
1424 2012-12-20 21:19:43 <MC1984> i dont see FW getting as widespread as it did if anyone actually owned the specs
1425 2012-12-20 21:22:02 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1426 2012-12-20 21:22:25 <sipa> does that mean that a bit transfer error across the wire could cause kernel memory corruption...?
1427 2012-12-20 21:24:30 <gmaxwell> sipa: I believe it does, though firewire is packetized and I think has a crc.
1428 2012-12-20 21:25:15 <gmaxwell> (Other things manage to do networked-dma safely, infiniband for example)
1429 2012-12-20 21:28:52 Guest78994 is now known as jine
1430 2012-12-20 21:29:22 jine is now known as Guest98094
1431 2012-12-20 21:31:34 * luke-jr_ wonders if eSATA has the same "problem"
1432 2012-12-20 21:34:54 <gmaxwell> the real beauty of the firewire attack is that any firewire enabled computer is the attack tool too. so, e.g. there is good odds that if you have a laptop the only thing you need is a cable and some software.
1433 2012-12-20 21:36:39 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1434 2012-12-20 21:42:23 bakh has joined
1435 2012-12-20 21:45:55 jdnavarro has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1436 2012-12-20 21:47:15 flatfly has joined
1437 2012-12-20 21:47:48 dlb76 has joined
1438 2012-12-20 21:50:51 one_zero has joined
1439 2012-12-20 21:51:46 <gmaxwell> luke-jr_: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~delaat/rp/2011-2012/p14/report.pdf
1440 2012-12-20 21:54:23 meLon_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1441 2012-12-20 21:58:03 meLon has joined
1442 2012-12-20 22:02:13 donnchac has quit (Quit: leaving)
1443 2012-12-20 22:02:55 slush has joined
1444 2012-12-20 22:11:26 <luke-jr_> slightly OT, but since it involves (quite indirectly) the Foundation… apparently Roger Ver is publishing private info of his customers are retaliation: https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=131574
1445 2012-12-20 22:11:44 maaku has joined
1446 2012-12-20 22:12:16 * luke-jr_ wonders if BitInstant has *anyone* sane behind it.
1447 2012-12-20 22:13:56 <gmaxwell> not just his customers, but blockchain.info private data.
1448 2012-12-20 22:17:18 * luke-jr_ really thinks it would have been better for BitPay to have BitInstant's place on the Foundation Board <.<
1449 2012-12-20 22:21:46 harkon_ has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1450 2012-12-20 22:21:57 harkon_ has joined
1451 2012-12-20 22:22:16 <phantomcircuit> luke-jr_, im just happy other people are now realizing how fucking crazy roger is
1452 2012-12-20 22:22:17 harkon has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1453 2012-12-20 22:22:27 harkon has joined
1454 2012-12-20 22:23:07 <MC1984> pretty immature reaction from a business there
1455 2012-12-20 22:24:48 BTCOxygen has joined
1456 2012-12-20 22:24:49 skeledrew has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1457 2012-12-20 22:25:28 skeledrew has joined
1458 2012-12-20 22:26:30 D34TH_ has joined
1459 2012-12-20 22:26:30 D34TH has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1460 2012-12-20 22:26:45 D34TH_ is now known as D34TH
1461 2012-12-20 22:26:51 D34TH has quit (Changing host)
1462 2012-12-20 22:26:51 D34TH has joined
1463 2012-12-20 22:27:41 darkip3 has joined
1464 2012-12-20 22:28:04 nus has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1465 2012-12-20 22:28:23 freewil has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
1466 2012-12-20 22:29:08 torsthaldo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1467 2012-12-20 22:29:42 Guest42025 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1468 2012-12-20 22:29:52 Guest98094 is now known as jine
1469 2012-12-20 22:30:03 robocoin has joined
1470 2012-12-20 22:30:22 jine is now known as Guest44206
1471 2012-12-20 22:31:24 torsthaldo has joined
1472 2012-12-20 22:33:57 TD has joined
1473 2012-12-20 22:34:31 <MC1984> fuck that htread man
1474 2012-12-20 22:34:40 <MC1984> sharing admin logins between businesses really?
1475 2012-12-20 22:34:55 Ferroh_ has joined
1476 2012-12-20 22:35:24 CodesInChaos has joined
1477 2012-12-20 22:35:39 <sipa> afaik, he was a shareholder in blockchain.info
1478 2012-12-20 22:36:16 <sipa> (which doesn't make it any more professional, but it wasn't just sharing admin logics between unrelated businesses)
1479 2012-12-20 22:37:35 <gmaxwell> and the person who's info he was pulling was apparently in the process of ripping him off...
1480 2012-12-20 22:37:41 <MC1984> still seems like a bad idea to have admin logins flaoting around
1481 2012-12-20 22:37:44 Ferroh has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1482 2012-12-20 22:37:59 Ferroh__ has joined
1483 2012-12-20 22:38:26 <gmaxwell> so other than a bit of poor judgement and the revelation that he was _able_ to identify blockchain.info users by address... I dunno how this all really reflects poorly on roger but I haven't followed closely.
1484 2012-12-20 22:39:03 <MC1984> it doesnt, just standard forum hype and sensationalising and drama
1485 2012-12-20 22:40:01 [\\\] has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1486 2012-12-20 22:40:05 <Cusipzzz> "ripping him off" lol he sent the guy the coins
1487 2012-12-20 22:40:27 <gmaxwell> Cusipzzz: I thought he had refused to and only did after he was identified?
1488 2012-12-20 22:40:49 <Cusipzzz> i mean, the guy received bonus coins from roger.. he didn't exactly hack his webserver and steal roger's wallet
1489 2012-12-20 22:40:53 Ferroh_ has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1490 2012-12-20 22:41:16 <zooko> TL;DR. But what are the units in the first post. 4.1 something. Is that 4.1 BTC?
1491 2012-12-20 22:41:22 <zooko> Or 4.1 K USD, or what.
1492 2012-12-20 22:41:25 <sipa> BTC
1493 2012-12-20 22:41:26 <Cusipzzz> i can send coins to a rando forum address, and then doxx the person and call them out as a scammer?
1494 2012-12-20 22:41:28 <sipa> you read that right
1495 2012-12-20 22:41:29 MrTiggr has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1496 2012-12-20 22:41:30 <sipa> 4 BTC
1497 2012-12-20 22:41:33 <Cusipzzz> zooko: yes, 4.1 btc, lol
1498 2012-12-20 22:41:38 <zooko> I'm curious how much money has to be at stake before Roger does this. :-)
1499 2012-12-20 22:41:42 <midnightmagic> His revelation of the scammer's personal details reflects badly on Roger.
1500 2012-12-20 22:41:53 <Cusipzzz> 4, four, quatro
1501 2012-12-20 22:41:55 * gmaxwell makes a note to not do business with Cusipzzz lest he accidentally fatfinger a value.
1502 2012-12-20 22:41:57 <midnightmagic> zooko: Apparently $50.
1503 2012-12-20 22:42:00 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1504 2012-12-20 22:42:02 <zooko> Okay, maybe he takes it personally even when it is a small amount. I can empathize with that...
1505 2012-12-20 22:42:16 [\\\] has joined
1506 2012-12-20 22:42:19 <Cusipzzz> i've certainly made that mistake... let it go, lesson learned
1507 2012-12-20 22:42:25 <gmaxwell> we should thank roger for making it (more widely?) know that b.i was keeping that info. :P
1508 2012-12-20 22:42:26 <midnightmagic> zooko: He referenced some kind of principle of the matter.
1509 2012-12-20 22:42:32 <zooko> Hey, totally different topic, did y'all see Brewster Kahle's blog post? Awesome.  ☺
1510 2012-12-20 22:42:36 <MC1984> its obvious the guy had a morla obligation to return the coins
1511 2012-12-20 22:42:41 meLon has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1512 2012-12-20 22:42:51 <MC1984> but he seemed asspained that memdealers wouldnt commit customs fraud for him
1513 2012-12-20 22:43:20 <MC1984> and them this roger made a poor decision over %50
1514 2012-12-20 22:43:22 <Cusipzzz> sure, guy is not a siant, but rager is ok to blast his personal info all over the forums over 4BTC?
1515 2012-12-20 22:43:25 <MC1984> $50
1516 2012-12-20 22:43:30 <MC1984> = clusterfuck
1517 2012-12-20 22:43:32 <Cusipzzz> lol rager.. freudian :)
1518 2012-12-20 22:44:02 <MC1984> zooko who dat
1519 2012-12-20 22:44:30 <sipa> zooko: i read it
1520 2012-12-20 22:44:42 <gmaxwell> MC1984: archive.org
1521 2012-12-20 22:44:47 ThomasV has joined
1522 2012-12-20 22:44:52 Guest44206 is now known as jine
1523 2012-12-20 22:45:22 jine is now known as Guest49694
1524 2012-12-20 22:45:27 <MC1984> funds for 1 petabyte?
1525 2012-12-20 22:46:31 <MC1984> wow thats a lot of blue leds
1526 2012-12-20 22:46:42 <MC1984> super annoying to work in that datacenter
1527 2012-12-20 22:46:45 <luke-jr_> anyone want to have an IRC new years party in ##tonal tonight?
1528 2012-12-20 22:46:52 <MC1984> i put gaffer tape over all my blue leds
1529 2012-12-20 22:46:53 <t7> arnt the US government building a 1 exabyte datacenter
1530 2012-12-20 22:46:55 <luke-jr_> err, #tonal
1531 2012-12-20 22:46:57 <t7> for spying on people
1532 2012-12-20 22:46:59 <midnightmagic> zooko: The music?
1533 2012-12-20 22:47:14 <gmaxwell> Cusipzzz: agreed enough.. (the not a staint but not okay)
1534 2012-12-20 22:47:44 <zooko> http://blog.archive.org/2012/12/19/i-donated-bitcoins-to-the-internet-archive/
1535 2012-12-20 22:47:50 <MC1984> a petabyte is alot but why archive that much stuff in one place
1536 2012-12-20 22:48:03 <MC1984> i hate this idea of data warehousing
1537 2012-12-20 22:48:07 <zooko> midnightmagic: no, what music?
1538 2012-12-20 22:48:27 <zooko> I like The Alpaca Socks song by Max Min, and the album by SEVEN7HWAVE.
1539 2012-12-20 22:49:22 <gmaxwell> zooko: I like that song too.
1540 2012-12-20 22:49:36 <gmaxwell> it's very catchy
1541 2012-12-20 22:52:06 luke-jr_ is now known as Luke-Jr
1542 2012-12-20 22:53:38 GMP has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
1543 2012-12-20 22:55:07 Nicksasa has joined
1544 2012-12-20 22:55:43 wizkid057 has quit (Quit: this test will determine the fate of this poor 6990)
1545 2012-12-20 22:56:00 bakh has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
1546 2012-12-20 22:58:49 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1547 2012-12-20 22:59:11 robocoin has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1548 2012-12-20 22:59:45 AlexWaters has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1549 2012-12-20 23:00:23 maaku has joined
1550 2012-12-20 23:04:22 robocoin has joined
1551 2012-12-20 23:05:51 maaku has quit (Quit: maaku)
1552 2012-12-20 23:07:30 flatfly has quit (Quit: Yo!)
1553 2012-12-20 23:11:01 Guest42025 has joined
1554 2012-12-20 23:11:02 darkip3 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
1555 2012-12-20 23:17:23 Guest42025 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
1556 2012-12-20 23:17:58 BlackPrapor has joined
1557 2012-12-20 23:18:01 <sipa> updated bip32 a bit
1558 2012-12-20 23:18:41 <ThomasV> so you see, it's not final :)
1559 2012-12-20 23:19:05 <sipa> no actual changes, just the text
1560 2012-12-20 23:19:27 <sipa> but indeed, i prefer not calling it final for now
1561 2012-12-20 23:19:38 CodesInChaos has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
1562 2012-12-20 23:19:39 <sipa> i asked Hal to take a look at it
1563 2012-12-20 23:21:06 agricocb has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
1564 2012-12-20 23:29:22 ovidiusoft has quit (Quit: leaving)
1565 2012-12-20 23:33:38 <etotheipi_> sipa: let me know when you get some test vectors... I'd like to compare answers
1566 2012-12-20 23:34:01 darkskiez has joined
1567 2012-12-20 23:39:55 RazielZ has quit (Quit: Leaving)
1568 2012-12-20 23:41:38 eoss has joined
1569 2012-12-20 23:42:00 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
1570 2012-12-20 23:42:43 ThomasV has joined
1571 2012-12-20 23:44:13 MrTiggr has joined
1572 2012-12-20 23:45:52 Guest49694 is now known as jine
1573 2012-12-20 23:46:01 BlackPrapor has quit (Quit: KVIrc 4.0.4 Insomnia http://www.kvirc.net/)
1574 2012-12-20 23:46:09 BTCOxygen has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
1575 2012-12-20 23:46:22 jine is now known as Guest76206
1576 2012-12-20 23:53:06 ThomasV has quit (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)